Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: OMRF's vs. SMRF's

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Our office policy has been to use an Rw of 6 for loading, and then detail
the frame following the additional requirements for SMRFs.  Too much
uncertainty with these frames (or the yield strenght of the steel).  The
only time we use a higher Rw is if we combine moment frames with eccentric
braced frames.  Even on retrofits of historic buildings using the UCBC, we
still detail the frame as a SMRF.

Are we wasting our clients money?

Comments appreciated

Paul McEntee

----------
> From: Bill Allen, S.E. @ ALLEN DESIGNS <BAllenSE(--nospam--at)pacbell.net>
> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> Subject: Re: OMRF's vs. SMRF's
> Date: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 1:38 PM
> 
> Footnotes 7 & 8 pertain to concrete frames. I believe that steel OMRFs
are
> allowed in seismic zone 4. The difference between OMRFs and SMRFs is the
Rw
> (6 vs.12).
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Allen
> 
> 
> ----------
> > From: Liu, Kenneth <liuk(--nospam--at)pbworld.com>
> > To: 'seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org'
> > Subject: RE: OMRF's vs. SMRF's
> > Date: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 12:45 PM
> > 
> > I do not have UBC 97 edition yet, but you may looking into 94 UBC,
> > Chapter 16.
> > At least you can find the foot notes under  Table 16-N :  Foot notes 
6,
> > 7 & 8