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

Re: Rigid Diaphragm Analysis

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I am familiar with seismic analysis but other than reading about it, have
not persued it.  What I'm seeing concerning rigid "diaphrams" is (IMHO)
"rigid" {chords} and their respective lateral deflection.  This would make
it a function of the type of chord (CMU, top plate) and the rigidity of the
wall below/above which is in turn a function of the height, spans and tie
spacings.  In other words, the geometry of the building assuming that the
chords and ties are designed right.  In terms of the walls maybe it would be
better written in the form of an hl/t inequality.

Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert J Bossi, PE <rjbossi(--nospam--at)sonic.net>
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Date: Saturday, May 08, 1999 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Rigid Diaphragm Analysis


>
>
>Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:
>
>> This poses a number of problems that need a
>> resolution and I don't feel that working through the code cycle will
provide
>> an expedient solution.
>>
>> I think we need some constructive opinions as what steps we need to take
>> between now and July <SNIP>
>
>Dennis:
>
>What about getting ICBO staff to publish an interpretation in Building
Standards
>Magazine on the issue?
>Most building officials will accept such a statement.  The question might
simply
>be:  Does Section 1630.10 apply to buildings having a lateral system
consisting
>of wood diaphragms and shear walls that comply with Section 2315?
>
>I believe wood frame buildings (wood shear walls and diaphragms) should
always
>qualify as "flexible"
>When we consider wood diaphragms combined with non wood elements (frames or
>concrete walls) then I think we need to be more careful.
>
>Bob Bossi
>
>