This is sort of a follow-up to a question I had asked last week ( but received no replies (apparently I baffled you all).
My previous question pertained to table 1609.6.2.1(1) of both the IBC and the current Building Code of New York State. There is a discrepancy between the two codes for load values listed under the columns headed "Vertical Loads-Windward Overhang-End Zone" and "Vertical Loads-Windward Overhang-Interior Zone" in table 1609.6.2.1(1). One example is for 85 mph wind velocity in the longitudinal direction: the tabulated loads for the end zone and interior zone are -20.6 psf and -16.4 psf, respectively, in the New York Code, and -19.3 psf and -15.1 psf, respectively in IBC 2000. It turns out that the reason for the discrepancy is that the New York Code uses the revised version of table 1609.6.2.1(1) per the 2001 supplement to the IBC, which makes perfectly good sense.
Now my question is, why doesn't the 2003 IBC version of table 1609.6.2.1(1) match that in the 2001 supplement? Table 1609.6.2.1(1) in the 2003 IBC appears to match the corresponding table in the 2000 IBC, prior to the supplement. Was the information in the 2001 supplement mistakenly ignored, or have the loads reverted to their 2000 value?
Thanks to anyone and everyone for their input.
My previous question pertained to table 1609.6.2.1(1) of both the IBC and the current Building Code of New York State. There is a discrepancy between the two codes for load values listed under the columns headed "Vertical Loads-Windward Overhang-End Zone" and "Vertical Loads-Windward Overhang-Interior Zone" in table 1609.6.2.1(1). One example is for 85 mph wind velocity in the longitudinal direction: the tabulated loads for the end zone and interior zone are -20.6 psf and -16.4 psf, respectively, in the New York Code, and -19.3 psf and -15.1 psf, respectively in IBC 2000. It turns out that the reason for the discrepancy is that the New York Code uses the revised version of table 1609.6.2.1(1) per the 2001 supplement to the IBC, which makes perfectly good sense.
Now my question is, why doesn't the 2003 IBC version of table 1609.6.2.1(1) match that in the 2001 supplement? Table 1609.6.2.1(1) in the 2003 IBC appears to match the corresponding table in the 2000 IBC, prior to the supplement. Was the information in the 2001 supplement mistakenly ignored, or have the loads reverted to their 2000 value?
Thanks to anyone and everyone for their input.
