Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: IBC Section 1908.1.16 is a bugger

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Yes, I am in California.

 

I am referring to structural components, specifically hold downs in residential shear walls in remodels.

 

One plan checker I am currently dealing with won't even let me use 2,500 psi concrete. The Simpson program will not work for 2,000 psi concrete. I don't think the plan checker could tell me the difference between 2,000 psi concrete and 2,500 psi concrete except for a number in a specification. Both are uninspected.

 

I asked him if he knew where the 2.5 factor came from. He said "Yes. It came from the code".

 

Doh!

 

Yes, he's a S.E.

 

Sigh...

 

 

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.

ALLEN DESIGNS

Consulting Structural Engineers
 
V (949) 248-8588 F(949) 209-2509

-----Original Message-----
From: john yang [mailto:jeongidea(--nospam--at)gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 10:43 AM
To:
seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: IBC Section 1908.1.16 is a bugger

 

I know 2.5 factor killing especially non-structural component case.  I don't know you are in California or not. However, In California Building Code,  we have some relaxation for non-structural component members.  If your are located in California,  see 1908A.1.47.

John

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Bill Allen <t.w.allen(--nospam--at)cox.net> wrote:

Now that new construction is slowing down, I wonder how big of a role this will play in the remodel world.

 

Does anyone know the source of the 2.5 factor mentioned in the modification to ACI 318 Appendix D.3.3.5? It seems rather arbitrary to me. But, what do I know?

 

 

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.

ALLEN DESIGNS

Consulting Structural Engineers
 
V (949) 248-8588 F(949) 209-2509