Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
'97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: "Seaint (E-mail)" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
- From: "Bruce Holcomb" <bholcomb(--nospam--at)brpae.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:43:38 -0500
I am looking at IBC & UBC to see which code I would prefer to use for a building design in Las Vegas. (From what I have been told, we can use either... I don't know why... maybe the city is in the process of adopting the IBC.) I have checked the seismic design forces and what I got is that the '97 UBC seismic forces are higher than the 2000 IBC. Does that seem logical? UBC zone is 2B and for IBC, Ss = 0.615 and S1 = 0.182. Beyond calculating the seismic forces, it seems that the two codes are similar in their application to the design of the structural elements. Am I missing anything? Any guidance you can give would be appreciated! Bruce D. Holcomb, PE Butler, Rosenbury & Partners 300 S. Jefferson, Suite 505 Springfield, MO 65806-2217 ph (417) 865-6100 fax (417) 865-6102 ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
- From: David A. Fanella
- Re: '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
- Prev by Subject: Re: "Structural Engineering" Magazine
- Next by Subject: Re: '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
- Previous by thread: Re: Stainless Steel
- Next by thread: Re: '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]