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]

Ouch! Having reviewed that progressive collapse proposal, I can say that
anyone who has to design to it has my deepest sympathies.  I think NJ
DCA chaired the committee that put the proposal together, which probably
explains why they pushed it forward even though it was rejected in the
ICC code development cycle.

Not that I have a problem with designing and detailing for basic
structural integrity and structural continuity, of course. But that
proposal went way beyond anything currently required by any code (I'm
thinking ACI 318 particularly with the requirements stemming from Ronan
Point). It was just about taking the DOD/GSA requirements for a complete
progressive collapse analysis (including removing columns, bearing
walls, etc. to see the structural behavior) that you'd do for a
high-risk structure (like an embassy) and applying it to *every* type of
building, even your basic two-story condo or retail building.

NCSEA has been working (along with the various material groups: ACI,
AISC, NCMA, AF&PA) on a counter-proposal that I understand is much more
grounded in reality and actual risk, and better reflects the current
structural integrity language and requirements from ACI, AISC, ASCE 7
and other existing standards.


Gary J. Ehrlich, PE
Program Manager, Structural Codes & Standards
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
1201 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005
ph: 202-266-8545  or 800-368-5242 x8545
fax: 202-266-8369

-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart, Matthew [mailto:mstuart(--nospam--at)] 
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 7:59 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: RE: 2006 IBC Wind Load question


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

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

Matthew Stuart

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********