I am done with this one. It is
3 pages long. Evidently, the only epoxy anchor acceptable now is HILTI RE500
SD. The ICC report is close to 50 pages (?!).
Working early, heh? Hoping for
V. Steve Gordin, SE
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Subject: RE: what's wrong?
Are you actually
admitting that you have a pencil on your desk Steve?
My cold shower this
week has been post installed anchors compliant with IBC
IMO, this development
is an embarrassment to the profession.
T. William (Bill)
(949) 248-8588 ?
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:10
2006 IBC and 2007
CBC, Section 1802.2.7 refers literally to "Seismic Design Category D, E,
and F" per "Section 1613."
section refers to SDS A, B, C, and D (of course, no E & F).
However, the Site Class can be designated as A through F. I guess,
the above section should read "Seismic Design Category
May be it is
just too late, and I am not thinking straight. If not - was
this annoying error somehow corrected? I did not
see this in the errata for the printings 1, 2, and
And why on
earth would somebody come up with this extremely confusing idea of two
sets of identical designations intended to be repetitively used in the same
sections of the code? I mean, confusing not only to the practicing
engineer, but, apparently, to the code writers
Finally, how are
your spreadsheets moving along? My spreadsheets for the new code
are about three times longer than the previous ones. Because of
such length, as well as an extreme amount of weirdly named coefficients, the
analysis is hard to follow, and the physical sense of the problem is all but
IBC made it all but
impossible to do calcs by hand. In the long run, this is not
V. Steve Gordin,