Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
[SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Rw factors[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)power.net
- Subject: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Rw factors
- From: Dennis Wish <wish(--nospam--at)cyberg8t.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 14:55:01 -0800
- Cc: seaoc(--nospam--at)power.net
At 01:38 PM 11/8/96 -0500, MGFran(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote: >I would like to know what other engineers have been using for Rw with the >following conditions: Flexible diaphragms using plywood shear walls mixed >with steel frames on both residences and commercial structures. > >We have conservatively used the lowest value for Rw for all lateral force >resisting elements in the structure in the past, but it seems that one could >justify using an 8 for the plywood shear walls and a 6 for "Ordinary" steel >moment frames, for example, since the diaphragms are flexible and the shears >are distributed based upon tributary area. Better safe (conservative) than sorry, I've always used the equivalent of Rw=6 for any wood framed structure. I do this because I feel that most architects would prefer to skimp on walls and provide as many openings as possible. With and Rw factor of 6, you can design the narrower shear elements (wood piers) for a more conservative stiffness based upon shear wall deflection criteria from the '91 UBC Standards. Inasmuch as there is a question regarding adequate design methodology for story drift in a plywood shear wall, it seems most prudent to use the current standard and apply a higher force - determined by using Rw=6.0 That's my two cents, for what it's worth. Dennis S. Wish PE ...
- Prev by Subject: [SEAOC] RE: [SEAOC] Rw factors
- Next by Subject: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Rw factors
- Previous by thread: [SEAOC] RE: [SEAOC] Rw factors
- Next by thread: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Rw factors