Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
Re: 1997 UBC Question
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: 1997 UBC Question
- From: Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)fluor.com
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:48:08 -0800
Your elevated piece of equipment is an ELEMENT of a STRUCTURE, i.e., the structure supports the element h-sub-x is the ELEMENT attachment elevation h-sub-r is the STRUCTURE elevation with respect to grade. See the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book, Section C107 for more extensive background. See the SEAOC Design Manual Volume 1, Examples 37 and 38 for sample calculations. Regards, Rick Drake, SE Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo ***************************** "Ritter, Mike" <mritter(--nospam--at)lgt.lg.com> on 01/31/2000 08:32:17 AM Please respond to seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org> cc: (bcc: Rick Drake/AV/FD/FluorCorp) Subject: 1997 UBC Question List members, I could use a little help interpreting the 97 UBC. A colleague has prepared a set of calculations to evaluate an elevated piece of equipment, and has used section 1632 of the 97 UBC (Lateral Force on Elements of Structures, Nonstructural Components and Equipment Supported by Structures). Specifically I have a question regarding the definition of hx and hr. hr is defined as the structure roof elevation with respect to grade. Is this the main building structure roof elevation or the equipment structure roof elevation? It appears that the ratio of hx and hr is to make the seismic demand larger if the equipment is higher in the building (makes sense) but I can read the hx definition two ways. Anybody got the answer? Thanks in advance, Michael Ritter, PE
- Prev by Subject: 1997 UBC Question
- Next by Subject: Re: 1997 UBC Question
- Previous by thread: 1997 UBC Question
- Next by thread: Re: 1997 UBC Question
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]