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

Re: Ron Gallagher's Comments in SEAOC Plan Review

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
At 06:46 PM 5/7/99 -0700, "Ron O. Hamburger" <ROH(--nospam--at)eqe.com> wrote:

>Gentlemen-

>Here's the facts with regard to the rigid diaphragm requirement,

>Refer to your 1988 UBC (yes that's right 1988!!)

        [balance of Ron's posting appears way below]
------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Ron, This same code text you post that appears in 88 UBC is what Bill
Cain posted from the 97 UBC, without comment, on 5/3/99 at 10:53, in
response to a request of a Canadian engineer who didn't have the 97 UBC.

Bill only transmitted this language, but I commented on it on 5/3/99 at
2:11, and I offered some interpretation of its regulatory and practical
effects. 

Since that time, the discussions on this matter and its implications
continues, and in my opinion, does so quite usefully.

What is not clear is how yet another reciting of the same code text, without
adding anything in explanation other than suggesting the quoted text is
familiar, constitutes "the facts" with regard to the "rigid diaphragm"
requirement. Nor is it clear how reciting the same code text again has
materially helped to understand its rationale or to resolve its ambiguities.    

It has already been pointed out that the term "rigid diaphragm" appears not
to exist in the code sections already cited, '88 edition to present, and
nobody has yet controverted that notion, let alone refuted the asserted
significance of the text that does appear.

I stopped going to Sunday school when the teacher kept waving her Bible as
her authority and declined to informatively explain anything. We separate
secular law from biblical law in this country. In building code law however,
it is all scrambled together. Code originates remotely and loftily, like
biblical law, is propounded as though from pulpits, but then is enforced as
secular law you can't walk out on halfway through Sunday.

Charles O. Greenlaw, SE    Sacramento CA
---------------------------------------------
        [balance of Ron's posting: ]

>Section 2312 sub para 5.
>The desgin story shear Vx, in any story is the sumof the forces Ft and Fx
>above that story.  Vx shall be distributed ot he various elements of the
>vertical lateral force resisting system in proportion to their rigidities,
>considering the rigidity of the diaphragm....
>
>Section 2312 sub para 6.
>Provision shall be made for the increased shears resulting from horizontal
>torsion where diaphragms are not flexible.    Diagphrams shall be
>considered flexible for the purpose of this paragraph when the maximum
>lateral deformation of the diaphragm is more than two times the average
>story drift of the associated story....
>
>Seem familiary????