Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: 2006 IBC Wind Load question

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: Message
It should also be noted that some states and counties modify the seismic parameters from that shown in IBC.  All-in-all, one should confirm with the local jurisdiction whether any local amendments have been made to the general building code.
 
 
Bill Sherman
CH2M HILL / DEN
720-286-2792
 


From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)umich.edu]
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 11:09 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: 2006 IBC Wind Load question

Part of is likely due to the fact that there is more variation in the snow load maps than the wind load maps.  Outside of the East and Southern Coasts (and Alaska), it is not that difficult to read the wind speed map.  It is all 90 mph except in "special" regions.  For snow loads, however, you have contours all over that place and it can be difficult to tell where that contour is in reality relative to your specific project site.  Thus, I will typically confirm the snow load with the local code official (I do that as well with wind and seismic)...and/or go conservative on the snow load that I get from the map.
 
But, I have also encountered situations where the default IBC values are modified.  For a long time, Michigan has modified the snow load map for use in Michigan.  I would not be suprise is local juridictions would do similar things at times.
 
Regards,
 
Scott
Adrian, MI
  -----Original Message-----
From: Stuart, Matthew [mailto:mstuart(--nospam--at)schoordepalma.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 7:59 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: 2006 IBC Wind Load question

Scott,

 

I have found in my experience that local officials are more likely to dictate snow loads that are higher than Code minimums as opposed to wind.

 

Even stranger than that, in NJ, the Dept. of Consumer Affairs (plan reviewing agency for public facilities) has mandated the use of a Progressive Collapse design criteria that has been rejected twice by the ICC.

 

Matthew Stuart