• Ronaldo,

Its purpose is to keep the CMU wall from moving inward.  The clip is restraining the top of the CMU wall so if it should move, it won't get past the face of that clip.  You can see that there is a soft joint between the top of the CMU and the underside of the concrete beam.  That joint is not preventing any inward movement of the CMU wall, that joint is to permit compression between the beam and top of wall.

Hope that helps.

• David.

Thank you for the explaination.

I am not sure if the detail depicts the correct information.

I kind of agree that the clip would be performing a restraint preventing the movement of the CMU, however it seams to be insuficient solution to prevent the CMU wall to move inwards which I beleive would be restraint by any reinforce steel bars in the core of the concrete wall.

Any ways, your clarification matched by initial thought which makes me feel I am on the right thinking.

Again, thank you very much for the response.

Regards.

In the question below my first interpretation is to assume that it takes 2.31lbs/in to raise water to a foot.

To get water to a 100 feet it would take 231lbs/in.

If water is supplied at 50lbs/in2.
I am a little confused why the supplied water is in "lbs/in2".

Why on the correct answer is mentioned 0.433lbs/in.

Thanks.

• Ronaldo

Not quite - 1 psi (lb/in2) pressure raises a column of water 2.31 feet. Therefore to raise it one foot you need psi of 1/2.31 = 0.433psi

lbf/in2 and psi is the same standard unit of water pressure. I don't know why they've varied the unit between the question and the answer.

Hope this helps.

• Thanks Benjamin for the clarification.

I guess I got confused on the water pressure thing.

Regards.

• Anyone please is welcome to clarify the below discrepancy I found on the ADA and IBC content in reference to a question from a mock test.

ADA says 1 1/2" max stairs nosing

IBC says 1 1/4" max stairs nosing.

What am I missing here?

• Ronaldo,

I asked an architect this question and they suggested to go with the lesser of the two since 1-1/2" would be the 'maximum' . 1-1/4" still seems safe enough to permit some overhang on the way down the stairs and on the way up isn't so deep that it would create a tripping hazard. A helpful tip someone gave me a long time ago when trying to decipher between two relatively similar scenarios is to try to over exaggerate the question to help bring forward the more obvious choice.

I noticed the ADA and IBC screenshots you've included above are listed on the NCARB demonstration exam. Maybe someone from NCARB can confirm.

Hope this helps.

• Ronaldo,

I would offer the following in this scenario, as it occurs often in our field in general: the main concept behind ALL codes and regulations is that you must always follow the most stringent requirement.  In this case, you have discovered that IBC is stricter than ADA, and therefore you need to follow IBC.  You should not be surprised if you encounter a question on the exam that in fact presents you with a similar situation.  In fact, when I took the tests, the NCARB Demonstration Exam in fact had a situation where the Zoning Code had a stricter height requirement that Chapter 5 of the Building Code, and the very point behind that question was to test me on my knowledge of knowing what to do in that situation.

It is not a guarantee that the codes are going to align with one another.  You have to remember that these codes all have governing bodies of people that update them every so often, and ADA for example probably does not get updated nearly as often as IBC.  This discrepancy you are finding might very well get rectified in the future and the two codes will some day agree.  As long as you are aware that you must always follow the strictest requirement, you will be fine and compliant with all codes.

Hope that helps.

• Thank you very much Jennifer and David for the clarifications.

Regards.

• Please any help on this simple questions.

For an office space with computers and electronic equipments, which fire sprinkler system should be chosen?

Pre-action, dry-pipe, wet-pipe or deluge?

Pre-action sounds the most appropriated, am I correct?

The pre-action, would also be recommended on art gallery and museums?

• I think it depends on what you mean by "electronics equipment." If youre talking your basic office space with regular computers, copy machines, printers, etc. I would say wet-pipe system, which is the most standard, generally-used system. Nothing about a standard office space requires a non-standard sprinkler system.
Art museum, however, yes I could see a pre-action system due to the rarity and high delicacy of the art. The preaction system would allow someone to check on the source of the system breach ahead of a sprinkler head going off. The major loss that would occur if the art were to get wet justifies the expense of such a system. A standard office space would not. Unless the question should clearly identify "an office space with highly important information that would be detrimental if damaged" go with wet-pipe for that one.

• Thank you David for your help.