Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
higher loads or better details.[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: SEAOC Listservice <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: higher loads or better details.
- From: Roger Turk <73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 19:48:22 -0400
Of course, my post should have read: Bill, Neither, otherwise I agree with you. (To put it in the proper perspective for comparisons, I would -->not<-- want to have 20 percent of the members missing just as I would not want to have 20 percent of the connections missing.) I don't recall saying anything implying that connections are not important. They are vitally important as is the design of *any* structural member. I stand by what I said: "A 'good' detail for an inadequate load will have the same result as a bad detail for a proper load." If the connection is underdesigned, it will fail no matter how well it is detailed ... as will a badly detailed connection which was supposedly designed for the loads it will receive. A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural) Tucson, Arizona Bill Allen wrote: . > Roger, which would you rather have: . > A. a structure where the members are 20% overstressed, or . > B. a structure missing 20% of its connections? . > . > IMO, those who are inexperienced at providing a lateral load path from . > roof to foundation (shear collection and transfer) are more dangerous than . > those who underestimate the design loads as well as codes that provide . > too low of a design load. . > . > Regards, . > Bill Allen . >
- Prev by Subject: RE: higher loads or better details.
- Next by Subject: Re: higher loads or better details.
- Previous by thread: RE: higher loads or better details.
- Next by thread: Re: higher loads or better details.