Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Steel Building Bracing

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Good point, Bill, but I think you mean Table 16-N.

> ----------
> From: 	Bill Allen[SMTP:BAllenSE(--nospam--at)mail-gw.pacbell.net]
> Sent: 	Wednesday, October 29, 1997 9:38 AM
> To: 	seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> Subject: 	Re: Steel Building Bracing
> 
> How about, if one or two story per Section 2211.8.5, the tension only
> members are designed for 3Rw/8?
> 
> Also, per Table 16-H, what about Item 1.3 "Light steel-framed bearing
> walls
> with tension-only bracing" (Rw=4)?
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Allen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Horning, Dick/CVO <dhorning(--nospam--at)CH2M.com>
> To: 'seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org' <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 9:13 AM
> Subject: RE: Steel Building Bracing
> 
> 
> >Tom, where are you seeing a TENSION-ONLY provision in the UBC?  For
> >Zones 3/4, the 1994 and 1997 UBC have stringent limits on slenderness
> >ratios of braces and require compression braces to carry 70% of story
> >shear.  This has eliminated use of rod x-bracing and virtually forced
> >use of tubes.  If you have found a way around these provisions, I'm
> all
> >ears (figuratively).
> >
> >> ----------
> >> From: Thomas Chiu[SMTP:Tomchiu(--nospam--at)worldnet.att.net]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 1997 9:46 PM
> >> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> >> Subject: Re: Steel Building Bracing
> >>
> >> Chris Towne wrote:
> >> >
> >> > What factor of safety is prudent on design of steel cable for
> >> tension
> >> > x-framing?
> >> >
> >> > Chris Towne, E.I.T.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Don't forget the 3 Rw/8 X the UBC seismic force in your design, I
> >> don't
> >> have the UBC Code section handy but it should be under TENSION-ONLY
> >> braced frame section. I had reviewed some engineer's design that
> did
> >> not
> >> check for 3 Rw/8 x UBC forces and he ended up revising his details
> >> that
> >> had gone for bid and cost the owner an arm and leg for the
> revision.
> >> The reason being that they were using some old computer program
> that
> >> never got updated for that section of the Code --- another unproper
> >> use
> >> of computer program.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>