Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: RE: Mailing list invitation

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I am interested in your response. I read the test data from Serrette's work
and don't remember this. Can you elaborate on the difference and why the
configuration that was tested (as you indicated) was not the same as the
final used in the formation of the code? Was there any interpolation
involved? I also recall that the cyclic test involved a maximum drift to
each cycle.
I will go back to the research data I have and review it.
I would still be interested in your further explanation on how the '97 UBC
values reflect a working stress value reduced from the ultimate tested
values.
Also, would you mind identifying yourself - you may do so privately if you
prefer.
Regards
Dennis Wish PE

-----Original Message-----
From: ROgawa(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:ROgawa(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 11:11 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: RE: Mailing list invitation


You made some interesting statements on the Serrette's testing for AISI.
Keep
in mind that the values recognized in the code is the ultimate value with no
consideration for deflection.  Also Serrette's tested the cyclic tests on a
4
x 8 frame with back to back studs.  If we consider the movement and test on
a
8 x8 frame to account for the plywood joint,  we may have a different story.
With the 4 x 8 test frame, edge distance of the fastener is no problem.