Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
Re: '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re: '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
- From: "David A. Fanella" <dfanella(--nospam--at)skghoshassociates.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:55:18 -0500
Bruce:Have you taken into consideration the soil effects (site class) yet? This can have a major influence on the magnitude of the seismic forces as well as the level of detailing that is required.
Dave Fanella David A. Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E. Director of Engineering S.K. Ghosh Associates, Inc. 1856 Walters Avenue, Suite 200 Northbrook, IL 60062 Ph: 847.291.9864 Fax: 847.291.9865 E-mail: dfanella(--nospam--at)skghoshassociates.com Web Page: skghoshassociates.com At 10:43 AM 4/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- References:
- '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
- From: Bruce Holcomb
- '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
- Prev by Subject: '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
- Next by Subject: RE: '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
- Previous by thread: '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
- Next by thread: RE: '97 UBC vs. 2000 IBC
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]