RE: Modeling Diaphragm Stiffness of Unreinforced Masonry[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "seaint" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: Modeling Diaphragm Stiffness of Unreinforced Masonry
- From: "Rodrigo Lema" <rlema(--nospam--at)arnet.com.ar>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 15:28:39 -0300
Yes, by structural element I mean the adjacent concrete framing member. Sorry I translate literally. A little history; we use a lot and I mean a LOT of concrete and very few steel. It's a problem of relative costs. So, by the time the code was written, the authors intended to generalize the concepts, and that's why it reads "structural element" instead of just plain "concrete".
And "x-brace", it was the term I was seeking until I decided to explain it as "inclined prop". And, you are right, you have to model it as a compression only member.
The _expression_ for A comes from (I once verified it) taking into account the shear in-plane stiffness the infill adds to the frame. Of course, it's an elastic approach (which I think is suitable for your wind problem), but for seismic design purposes it's ok too given the uncertainties present once you look at the whole picture.
BTW, when I mentioned Paulay & Priestley's book, It was "Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings", by John Wiley & sons. But back then, I haven't yet noticed that seismic loads were not your main concern.
- Prev by Subject: RE: Modeling Diaphragm Stiffness of Unreinforced Masonry
- Next by Subject: RE: Modeling Diaphragm Stiffness of Unreinforced Masonry
- Previous by thread: Re: Modeling Diaphragm Stiffness of Unreinforced Masonry
- Next by thread: RE: Modeling Diaphragm Stiffness of Unreinforced Masonry