Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Wood Fr-Upgr : What I'll do and two more questions

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Charles,
What I was suggesting was valid under ABK methods - such as the UCBC
Appendix Chapter 1 for Unreinforced Masonry. The diaphragm value for 1x
straight sheathing is 100 plf, diagonal is 250 plf etc.
The weak link in this case will not be the roof since, I believe, 2x T&G is
(if I remember) higher than stucco at 180 plf. Therefore, my under ABK, I
would have to design based upon the CAPACITY of the stucco wall rather than
by the DEMAND of the diaphragm or actual tributary load applied (a
comparison of Capacity and Demand)
This is what confuses me. In this case, it probably is easier to simply
figure the tributary width at the line of shear and design for the actual
condition.

Thanks
Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Greenlaw [mailto:cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)speedlink.com]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 9:51 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Wood Fr-Upgr : What I'll do and two more questions


Dennis, Bob Bossi's clarification (below) makes sense just fine, but I
caution you to be wary when assigning an upper capacity to the existing roof
diaphragm for this purpose. I think you said it is made of 2x6 T&G deck
planks. There only maybe is an accredited lower bound allowable diaphragm
shear value you may cite in your calculations. But you can hardly surmise
from that what an upper limit of strength might be.

As always, each structural element will behave the way IT wants to, not the
way desired of it. It's like schoolchildren-- there are underachievers and
there are overachievers. We are well aware of the underachievements here and
there in Northridge, but who investigated all the houses that won't calc out
yet failed to fail? The overachieving elements remain unknown as to their
capacities.

I think you are better positioned if you design for tributary forces in
well-accepted ways, with due consideration for the uncertainties of relative
rigidities among the roof diaphragm and useful walls, and avoid relying on
the roof diaphragm protecting you like a fuse blowing.

Charles O. Greenlaw,  SE     Sacramento CA
______________________________________________
>
>Dennis:
>
>What I was suggesting was to:
>1.  calculate the EQ load the existing structure would deliver to the
common
>wall using the current code tributary area methods and compareit to the
capacity
>of the existing roof diaphragm.  Use whichever is less (most likely the
>diaphragm capacity) since the wall won't see more load from the original
>structure than the existing diaphragm can deliver.
>
>2.  calculate the full code load for the addition.
>
>3.  add 1 and 2 together and design the common shear wall for the combined
load.
>
>Bob
>