Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: what's wrong?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I believe that California will NOT be adopting the IRC.  This makes sense to
a large degree as the IRC is 1) prescriptive and 2) generally is not
applicable for extreme loading (i.e. really high wind loads and SDC E or F).

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Lloyd Pack [mailto:packman90(--nospam--at)qwest.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:29 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: what's wrong?


In our area, we've been on the IBC for about 5-6 years and 
residential construction falls under the IRC which generally doesn't require
a soils report or many of the other things that the IBC requires.

It was kind of weird to get used to having two different codes, one for
commercial and one for residential, but that's the way that they get used
here.

You may want to check the IRC for the soils report requirements for
residential construction.

Has the CBC employed the IRC as a separate document like the ICC has?

Take Care,
Lloyd


On 15 Jan 2008 at 9:56, Steve Gordin wrote:

> 
> Ralph,
> 
> Severe earthquakes may or may not happen in the our or the
> homeowner's lifetimes. But if they will, the likely damage may be
> greatly exacerbated by the actual condition of the soil, liquefaction
> etc.By that time, the comments about being "broke" will be long
> forgotten, and people will start looking for a guy to pick up the
> repair costs. With no soil report, this guy will be us. 
> 
> The bottom line - it boils down to the issue we discussed before. 
> Building in the proximity to the faults (essentially, SDC D for 
> residential construction) is inherently risky, hence the associated 
> costs. IMHO, these costs are nothing compared to the professional
> (ours) liabilities associated with the Big (and even not-so-big) One.
> 
> V. Steve Gordin, SE
> Irvine CA
> 
>     ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com 
> To: sgordin(--nospam--at)sgeconsulting.com ; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 09:21
> Subject: Re: what's wrong?
> 
> Steve,
> 
> I certainly agree with your comment regarding a "typical" new house in 
> the Bay Area. In that case the expense of a soil report may not be all 
> that significant (although practically every client I've had has ended 
> up his project "in extremis," making all sorts of pain-filled comments 
> about being broke).
> 
> But what I'm really referring to is my typical client who is just 
> adding a little room on the back of his house, or adding a partial 
> second story. And what about if he's just adding a single new 
> foundation for a new shear wall to make his house more earthquake 
> resistant -- does he still need a $3,000 soil report? And if he does 
> and it recommends a pier foundation, although the house has been 
> sitting there on 3" deep shallow footings for 80 years without 
> significant harm, what's the rationale in gold-plating the new 
> foundation?
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> Ralph
> 
> In a message dated 1/15/08 9:03:52 AM, sgordin(--nospam--at)sgeconsulting.com
> writes:
>     Dave and Ralph,
> 
>     It is not quite an "across the board" requirement. Overall, only a
>     very limited number of houses will be affected, with the Bay and
>     LA areas hit hardest.
> 
>     These areas are known for their no-so-good soils , and, in all
>     honesty, require soil investigation anyway.
> 
>     As far as I know, a decent residential soil reportin OC can be
>     done for about $3K, and represents a negligible fraction of a
>     median property cost of about $655K.
> 
>     V. Steve Gordin, SE
>     Irvine CA
> 
> 
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com
>     To: davea(--nospam--at)laneengineers.com ; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>     Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 08:43
>     Subject: Re: what's wrong?
> 
>     In a message dated 1/15/08 8:41:34 AM, davea(--nospam--at)laneengineers.com
>     writes:
> 
>     The foundation is of the utmost importance, certainly, but to
>     require a soils report across the board ...especially for
>     light-frame/single-story/non-expansive-soil-supported structures
>     ... seems sort of harsh.
> 
>     Anything to drive up the cost of housing, eh?
> 
> 
>     Ralph
> 
> 
> 
> **************
> Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. 
> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 





******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********