几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量  


返回   几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量 » 三维空间:产品设计或CAX软件使用 » CAD设计 » 产品功能分析
用户名
密码
注册 帮助 会员 日历 银行 搜索 今日新帖 标记论坛为已读


 
 
主题工具 搜索本主题 显示模式
旧 2009-09-16, 08:31 PM   #1
huangyhg
超级版主
 
huangyhg的头像
 
注册日期: 04-03
帖子: 18592
精华: 36
现金: 249466 标准币
资产: 1080358888 标准币
huangyhg 向着好的方向发展
默认 what is your interpretation of boca live load

what is your interpretation of boca live load?
boca table 1606 says: hotel, guestrooms and coridors = 40 psf; public rooms and corridors = 100 psf. i think asce-7 says "guestrooms and corridors serving guestrooms = 40 psf".
i interpret this to mean that the elevated floors that have only guest rooms and a corridor down the spine can be designed for 40 psf, i.e., corridor = 40 psf.
some of my fellow workers say that all corridors are public corridors and must be designed for 100. (i.e., "corridors serving guestrooms" are corridors in guestrooms.)
any opinions? or how do i get a definitive answer from boca?
one more reason for a unified national (or international) building code!!
these are almost always confusing because of the lack of specificity of the requirements as well as conflicting and overlapping requirements. for example, in a hotel, you wouldn't use the elevator for egress in a fire, so you use the stairs. the stairs (as a means of fire egress) must be designed for 100 psf, yet as you correctly interpreted, the stated requirement in the table is for corridors to be designed for the occupancy served (rooms and corridors, 40 psf). additionally, for corridors in other occupancies, the requirement above the first floor is 80 psf. gross disparity available in interpretation. i would tend to view corridors as more public than the rooms and opt for a greater load, whether 80 or 100 psf. either is defensible.
if you contact boca for an interpretation, i would be interested in their interpretation and would also be surprised if you got 40 psf, even though that is what is stated in the table, because of all the other little "i gotchas" that are available in codes for weasle-ing.
i tend to like using asce 7 because of its defensibility as a "standard of care" as perceived by other engineers, not code officials.
daski,
you can either, have the appropriate building official call boca or contact them yourself. they have an 800 number for questions from members but you do have to be a
__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言:前进吧,你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]
huangyhg离线中   回复时引用此帖
GDT自动化论坛(仅游客可见)
 


主题工具 搜索本主题
搜索本主题:

高级搜索
显示模式

发帖规则
不可以发表新主题
不可以回复主题
不可以上传附件
不可以编辑您的帖子

vB 代码开启
[IMG]代码开启
HTML代码关闭

相似的主题
主题 主题发起者 论坛 回复 最后发表
uninhabitable attics huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-16 05:14 PM
roof live load reduction huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-15 07:26 PM
partition live load huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-15 11:35 AM
live load reduction two way slabs huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-10 10:51 AM
effects of a load on sog and below grade huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-08 09:45 PM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 02:16 PM.


于2004年创办,几何尺寸与公差论坛"致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T | GPS研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量"。免责声明:论坛严禁发布色情反动言论及有关违反国家法律法规内容!情节严重者提供其IP,并配合相关部门进行严厉查处,若內容有涉及侵权,请立即联系我们QQ:44671734。注:此论坛须管理员验证方可发帖。
沪ICP备06057009号-2
更多