Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: OMRF's vs. SMRF's[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
- Subject: Re: OMRF's vs. SMRF's
- From: "Paul McEntee" <pmcentee(--nospam--at)hooked.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 20:44:38 -0700
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
- Prev by Subject: Re: OMRF's vs. SMRF's
- Next by Subject: One way slab design with point load.
- Previous by thread: Re: OMRF's vs. SMRF's
- Next by thread: Wilson Wants Complaints