Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Shear Wall Tests - Static vs. Dynami

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
So, then the next question is why were the results different than those done
by APA in their Research Report 154 which justified the UBC shearwall
values. This falls in line with Findleton's letter in the ICBO publications
"Building Standards" which Bill Allen Faxed to me.
Neither test was done cyclically.

Is the ASCE report too long to fax? If it is, where can I obtain it?

At what point would you revert to more conservative values such as the


-----Original Message-----
From:	Roger Turk [mailto:73527.1356(--nospam--at)]
Sent:	Wednesday, May 27, 1998 7:28 PM
To:	seaoc(--nospam--at)
Subject:	RE: Shear Wall Tests - Static vs. Dynami


I just got the Journal today and had only skimmed the conclusions and
diagrams.  The test procedures were:

Static:  IAW ASTM E 564, except higher test loads were used.

Dynamic:  "The sequential phased displacement (SPD) procedure ... of SEAOSC
(Shepherd 1996)."

Hope this answers your question.

A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona

Dennis Wish wrote:

. > How was the test criteria established. Dynamic and Static tests were
. > done for cold-form steel studs (which relates to the 1997 UBC shearwall
. > values). These tests were done under the test provisions established by
. > SEAOSC (Graham Dick was the chair of this sub-committee). I believe
. > to the accepted criteria for testing and would like to know if ASCE's
. > tests were comparable?
. > Dennis Wish PE
. >