Re: Codes comparison

Hi Benjamin, My question was not just directed at your project. I too have worked on some projects outside the USA and those project folks seemed to have known only about UBC 1997. More interesting is the fact that even US based equipment vendors continue to use UBC 97. When mechanical engineering guy in my company is putting together a specification for a pressure vessel or a heta exchanger or a cooler would ask me "Hey, Raj what zone should I specify for seismic force determination?" Recently, I called a person in Smithco regarding the absence of seismic force data in his drawings, he agreed to perform the requested calculations provided I specified the seismic zone. This is not the first time. Rajendran --- On Thu, 2/5/09, Ing. Benjamín Arcos Reyes <barcosr@gmail.com> wrote: From: Ing. Benjamín Arcos Reyes <barcosr@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Codes comparison To: seaint@seaint.org Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 10:02 PM All of you, Thank you for your replies. Rajendran, I'm not sure about the reason for asking us to use the UBC 97. Actually this comparison is for a company of the United States (sorry, some sort of confidentiality code prohibits us a lot of things, probably including this) and that has been the requirement. As a matter of fact, when structural consultants have came to Mexico in order to align all of us with the same design criteria, is the UBC-97 the one that is considered. Local codes are commonly used, many of them updated to the recent years. I'll certainly ask them about the reason of not using IBC2006 or ASCE 7. I'll let you know. Mr. Sprague, I'll contact you on your mail address. Thank you very much.. Benjamin On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Padmanabhan Rajendran <prajendran@ymail.com> wrote: I am curious: Why is there a reference to UBC-97 when it is so outdated. Any company that is ISO 9000 certified is required to use latest codes. It surprises me that several equipment vendors have not revised their software or spreadsheets to be in line with IBC or ASCE 7 procedures. Rajendran --- On Thu, 2/5/09, Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: Codes comparison To: seaint@seaint.org Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 2:27 AM Your English requires no excuse.  It is probably better than MY English and decidedly better than my Spanish.  I would urge you to purchase not only the IBC 2006 but also the ASCE 7-05.    Some of the most fundamental differences are in the seismic and wind provisions.  As such, the seismic provisions of the IBC and ASCE 7 have evolved from the NEHRP Provisions.  There are many helpful documents that will provide seismic design guidance at: http://www.bssconline.org/   The starting point of the seismic section is the use of the Ss and S1 values to define the ground shaking.  Some of the values you will need for South America are contained in the UFC 3-310-01. http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_310_01.pdf   I hope that you find this helpful.  Regards, Harold Sprague Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:29:57 -0600 Subject: Codes comparison From: barcosr@gmail.com To: seaint@seaint.org Hi everyone, The company I work for is usually asked for comparing the regulations included in the UBC-97 with those included in the local codes for several structural projects performed in Latinamerica. I wonder if these comparisons are still meaningful or should be made with the IBC 2006. I'm not aware of the serious differences that might exist between UBC and IBC. Does anybody have an opinion about this?.. it is my intend to purchase the IBC 2006... so.. I''m very interested in your comments. Thanks in advance. As ususal, excuse me for my possible language mistakes. Ing. Benjamin Arcos Reyes Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check it out. -- Atentamente, \0>   .|| < \_ Ing. Benjamín Arcos Reyes. Visita: http://www.senderodelpeje.blogspot.com/