Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
97 UBC
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: 97 UBC
- From: KTarlow(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:21:20 EST
Perhaps this has been discussed before and I missed it. I work in a the South bay area of Los Angeles County. My problem is there is no consistency on how the 97 code is interpreted. Example: The 96 update and 97 code penalizes buildings that use steel columns buried in grade beams as a lateral load resistant element The R value is lowered, and apparently for the whole building. An Engineer in town has convinced the City of Redondo Beach that he only has apply the lower R value to the lowest floor citing 1629.8.3 paragraph 4. In his analysis he claims because he is using a higher base shear at the lower level it therfore must be stiffer. Now a common client expects me to use the same reasoning. Ia at a loss, Well I guess a fired another Client. Would someone post the names of the Blue book committe so we can vote them out of office. Ken Tarlow, SE
- Prev by Subject: RE: 4 Way Flat Slabs
- Next by Subject: 97 ubc
- Previous by thread: Re: Retaining wall computer program
- Next by thread: 97 ubc
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]