] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

["Bill Polhemus" <bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc>]

This was a big item of debate way back when I worked at Brown & Root, most
of the design engineers at which weren't the most savvy regarding technical
issues--they were a lot better at just figuring out how to get drawings done
in record time.

Of course, we didn't deal with SEISMIC loads, but rather wind loads.

Also, as I've indicated before, this is one big plus for using the load
combinations in LRFD. First, since the load and resistance (a property of
the material) are separate considerations, you can use the same combinations
regardless of material. And since all the combinations are spelled out,
there is much less room for debate.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Richards P.E. [mailto:george(--nospam--at)borm.com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 3:59 PM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
Subject: RE: 2000 IBC v 1997 UBC code question

What ever the history though on the Left Coast we now
take the 1/3 on everything even seismic only load cases.  Do we have to
change our ways?


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********