Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
Re: 2000 IBC v 1997 UBC code question
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: 2000 IBC v 1997 UBC code question
- From: Tom.Hunt(--nospam--at)d-fd.com
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:33:16 -0800
Jeff,
I can't resist. Your loop hole is simple; use LRFD.
Thomas Hunt, S.E.
Duke/Fluor Daniel
----- Forwarded by Tom Hunt/DFD on 10/29/01 02:22 PM -----
"Jeff Barrett"
<jbarrett(--nospam--at)peao To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
fsc.com> cc:
Subject: Re: 2000 IBC v 1997 UBC code question
10/29/01 02:09
PM
Please respond
to seaint
Chuck...we are reading it as yes we do have to change our ways, and the 1/3
increase is no longer an option (with the exception for wood). I wish we
could still take it, but we haven't found anything that will allow it. If
somebody knows of a loop hole, please show me where I can find it in the
IBC.
Jeff Barrett, P.E. S.E.
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: 2000 IBC v 1997 UBC code question
- From: Dan Goodrich
- Re: 2000 IBC v 1997 UBC code question
- Prev by Subject: Re: 2000 IBC v 1997 UBC code question
- Next by Subject: RE: 2000 IBC v 1997 UBC code question
- Previous by thread: RE: 2000 IBC v 1997 UBC code question
- Next by thread: Re: 2000 IBC v 1997 UBC code question
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]