Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: L.A. City, Division 91[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: Re: L.A. City, Division 91
- From: <Parkerres(--nospam--at)aol.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:48:59 EDT
Regarding tilt-ups: Personally, I like the 24' continuous tie requirement for tilt-up buildings. I think it adds significant strength and performance to the building. Without continuous ties, the subdiaphragms, which everyone in the previous posts is counting on, have a tendency to open up at the chord of the diaphragm due to the diaphragm deflection. Since the edge of the diaphragm is typically a main beam in one direction, and the purlins are typically hung, the purlins can pull off of the beam collapsing an entire portion of the roof. This type of failure was seen in Northridge. As a rule, I think it is fair to say that tilt-up buildings, due to their nature (tall heavy walls laterally braced by a very light flexible diaphragm), have performed poorer than the average building in previous earthquakes. To take structure out of the building and make the buildings weaker, based on calculations and theories, seems to me to be ignoring the past. And as we all know, those that ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. Just my opinion. Bruce Resnick, SE Parker Resnick Str. Eng.
- Prev by Subject: Re: L.A. City, Division 91
- Next by Subject: Re: L.A. City, Division 91
- Previous by thread: Re: L.A. City, Division 91
- Next by thread: Re: L.A. City, Division 91