Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Fwd: Re: Dead Load On Shear Walls

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>[Dennis S. Wish PE]  If it were up to me, I would not consider >the wall,
opting for the more conservative approach. However, >this was not what was
>Joe, you have a point, but if the load is co-planer than It would >still
have to be considered in the same manner as a beam resting >on the wall.
The issue of the failure of the holddown at the >compression chord is
probably correct, but is only a guess >without testing.
>I think we would agree, therefore, that the conservative approach >would
be best here.

[Joe McCormick] After considering the situation a bit more, I agree with
Dennis that
ignoring the cross wall dead load for shear wall overturning is the best
thing to do...

But at any rate, I think there is a real difference between a beam atop the
shear wall and a cross wall framed into the shear wall.  The load path of
the beam reaction is down through the shear wall, lateral loading or no
lateral loading.  The load path of the dead load on top of the cross wall
would be straight down through the cross wall studs to the foundation under
gravity loading only.  The dead load reaction of the beam is on the shear
wall prior to any wall rotation.  The dead load reaction of the cross wall
is not on the shear wall until the wall has rotated sufficiently to pick up
the load (effectively eliminating the column action of the studs in the
cross wall and turning it into a "beam" resting on the shear wall). 

Thanks for the helpful thoughts,

Joe McCormick

From: Dennis S. Wish PE <wish(--nospam--at)>
To: 'seaoc(--nospam--at)'
Subject: RE: Dead Load On Shear Walls
Date: Thursday, April 03, 1997 2:03 PM



--- Internet Message Header Follows ---
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA25711
	for <rlewis(--nospam--at)>; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 22:30:24 -0600 (CST)
Received: from SHERMAN by (NTList 3.02.10) id va016635;
Sat, 5 Apr 1997 20:21:17 -0800
Received: from scott-s-machine ([]) by
          (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA203
          for <seaoc(--nospam--at)>; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 20:19:15 -0800
From: jmccormi(--nospam--at) (Joe McCormick)
To: <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
Subject: Re: Dead Load On Shear Walls
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 20:27:45 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <19970406041914593.AAA203@scott-s-machine>
Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
Error-To: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
X-Loop: seaoc(--nospam--at)
X-Info: [SEAOC]
Owner: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
X-POP3-Rcpt: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
X-Sender: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
Precedence: list
X-ListMember: rlewis(--nospam--at) [seaoc(--nospam--at)]


Richard Lewis, P.E.
Missionary TECH Team

The service mission like-minded Christian organizations
may turn to for technical assistance and know-how.