Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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


[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
My point or question is the cumulative effect of code additives.
My opinion is that:
1) design the column for stiffness and deflection with a slenderness factor
K equivalent to 2.1 (locating the load 2.1 time the unsupported height of
the column).
2) Do we then design the connection based upon 3Rw/8 times the reaction of
the column designed with a theoretical K of 2.1 (a cumulative effect) OR Do
we redesign the column substituting 3Rw/8 for the theoretical K?

A) how do we design the connection of beam to column is the beam is wood and
only used for a drag.
B) Do we design the drag for the actual load, or the demand created by the
increase caused by 3Rw/8 or the theoretical K?

I know these sound elementary, but I have not been designing embedded pole
footings within a structure based upon an increase in 3Rw/8 - but have used
a K of 2.1.
This brings up a question regarding the Hardy Wall product. The Hardy Frame
was tested and submitted for ICBO approval based upon an Rw of 6 - not 3. Is
this wrong, or simply interpretive?
Dennis S. Wish PE
La Quinta, California

ICQ# 6110557

"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It
will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."
Robert Hutchins

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen, S.E. [mailto:billallen(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 2:30 PM
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: WOOD MOMENT FRAMES, Rw = 3

If the "K" you are referring to is to calculate the allowable axial stress
based on KL/r, a K value of 2 is not conservative since the flagpole is
cantilevered (Ref. AISC p. 5-135). AISC in fact recommends a K value of 2.1.

Bill Allen

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis S. Wish <wish(--nospam--at)>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at) <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 12:22 PM

>I see your point and agree with you. One suggestion, the City of Santa
>Monica requires that a flagpole used outside (eccentric) to the structure
>for resistance of lateral loads only, be designed with a K factor of 2.0.
>This would push the load to twice the height of the column - essentially
>increasing the stiffness requirement of the column.
>Wouldn't this be the easiest, most conservative approach regardless of the
>column being in the plane of the wall or eccentric to it?
>Dennis S. Wish PE
>La Quinta, California
>ICQ# 6110557
>"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush.
>will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."
>Robert Hutchins
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Allen, S.E. [mailto:billallen(--nospam--at)]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 10:48 AM
>To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
>Subject: Re: WOOD MOMENT FRAMES, Rw = 3
>You have totally misunderstood my point. Assume a structure like a
>where you have "flagpoles" or "inverted pendulums" resisting seismic loads
>at the garage entry. The remainder of the LFRS consists of plywood shear
>walls. Based on the 1997 UBC, the entire lateral force resisting system
>resisting loads perpendicular to the garage opening will have to be
>based on an Rw=3. This includes the shear walls at the far end of the
>townhouse (furthest away from the garage opening).
>Based on the SEAOSC seminar, many (most? all?) felt that this was
>conservative and not accurate, but, unfortunately, the 1997 UBC had already
>gone to press. Some building officials (I don't know what jurisdiction(s))
>said they would amend their plan check procedure if SEAOC would present a
>position paper. To my knowledge, SEAOC has not provided this position paper
>therefore this code provision is still in effect.
>I suggested that a possible "work around" would be to design the structure
>based on Rw=6 (or 8 if all plywood shearwalls) and then apply 3Rw/8 to the
>design of the "inverted pendulums" which would bring the design of the
>"flagpoles" to near an Rw=3 without designing the whole structure for Rw=3.
>Bill Allen
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dennis S. Wish <wish(--nospam--at)>
>To: seaoc(--nospam--at) <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
>Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 10:33 AM
>Subject: RE: WOOD MOMENT FRAMES, Rw = 3
>>Whoa, stop me here and explain something to me. I am under the
>>(at least from the '94 code) that the system is designed for a Rw
>>in table 16-N-Structural Systems. In working stress design, only the
>>strength due to the internal reactions at the connections (beam to column,
>>column to fndt) are increased by 3Rw/8 - specifically as stated in
>>of the '94 code "In addition, in Seismic Zones 3 and 4, columns in frames
>>shall have the STRENGTH to RESIST the axial loads resulting from the load
>>combinations in Items 1 and 2 following...."
>>Following to the exception "1. Need not exceed either the maxium force
>>can be transferred to the column, by elements of the structure, or the
>>as determined by the overturning uplift which the foundation is capable of
>>This means to me that the system is designed by Rw factors as stipulated
>>Chapter 16 while the strength of the columns and foundation alone (rather
>>than the entire system) are increased 3Rw/8 to resist overturning.
>>Furthermore, to accomplish this, the connections need to be designed for
>>increased lateral load needed to resist the demand due to overturning.
>>This is a far cry from suggesting that the entire mixed system be designed
>>for a lateral load of 3Rw/8 (if this is what you are suggesting).
>>The reality of this would be that unless wind governs, the cost of
>>construction in seismic zones 3 or 4 would become unaffordable to most
>>families unless they reduce their living to a 900 square foot box. This
>>be simplistic, but there are a lot of financial ramifications for being
>>overly conservative.
>>As far as the comments about "personal interpretation of the code". Our
>>codes are built upon emperical rationalization not facts - for this reason
>>they are tweaked out in each code cycle - we hope for the better. However,
>>the codes are created by a group of individuals who, I believe, do the
>>they can to create an ecconomical interpretation of design, but are no
>>sure of what the effects will have than the rest of us following their
>>Be careful about accepting the letter of the code as gospel when there
>>certainly are interpretations to be made and conditions where the letter
>>the code can no apply - isn't this where engineering judgment comes into
>>Dennis S. Wish PE
>>La Quinta, California
>>ICQ# 6110557
>>"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush.
>>will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and
>>Robert Hutchins
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bill Allen, S.E. [mailto:billallen(--nospam--at)]
>>Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:16 AM
>>To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
>>Subject: Re: WOOD MOMENT FRAMES, Rw = 3
>>Another way would be to add "inverted pendulums" to the 3Rw/8 list. This
>>way, the design forces would be 2.25 times the rest of the building (if
>>is used) or an "effective" Rw=2.67 for the flagpoles. This approach would
>>require less re-wording of the Code, I believe. BTW, I would design the
>>grade beams, etc. using the higher force. You don't want the columns to be
>>O.K. and the foundation to fail.
>>Be careful about your "personal" interpretation of the Code. You may run
>>into a building official with a less than accommodating attitude.
>>Bill Allen
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Parkerres <Parkerres(--nospam--at)>
>>To: seaoc(--nospam--at) <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
>>Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:07 AM
>>Subject: Re: WOOD MOMENT FRAMES, Rw = 3
>>>Bill -
>>>Thanks for the repsonse.  I, too, feel that the Rw=3 for the rest of the
>>>building, or at least that direction, is excessive.  I will adopt the
>>>shrug method and design accordingly.  Personally, I think it would be
>>>if the Code left Rw=6 for cantilvered columns, and then added a note in
>>>text saying that cantlivered column systems should be designed for twice
>>>calculated load.  (This is similar to masonry shear walls, which are
>>>for 1.5 times the calculated load).  This would eliminate the Rw=3
>>>the building, yet still give the desired design results for the
>>>columns.  The Code could then explicitly deal with the question of
>>>not the doubled load also applies to the footing design and to the drift
>>>Bruce Resnick, SE
>>>Parker Resnick Str. Eng.