Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: 97 code

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 7/7/99 12:54:03 PM EST, fduarte(--nospam--at) writes:

<< I would like to read comments
 about how is the Architectural community 
 reacting to the 97 code specially the seismic chapter.
 In my case, Architects are crying for the height to width ratio.
 On another note, we are not using shear walls higher that 8d at 4" o.c.
 so that we are not required to used 3x. I have been reading about the
 shrinkage problems that 3x are causing.  I am finding myself calling out 
 "hardy frame" or "strong wall" as my shear resistance system. 

Be careful about using either of these two proprietary shear walls on a 
second floor of the building.  They will likely still have excessive drift 
due to holdown movement resulting from 2x floor joist shrinkage.  If you are 
using only walls w/ 8d at 4" o.c. max, then I imagine you are getting some 
longer shear walls than you use to get or are using the proprietary systems 
for shorter walls.

I have not heard any complaints from architects yet about the 2:1 aspect 
ratio, but then again we were very busy the past two weeks trying to get 
several jobs submitted for plan check prior to the July 1st cutoff date for 
the 1997UBC.  I imagine that the newer designs are going to include more 
moment frames and braced frames so the room stay the same size (I don't 
imagine the architects can make the windows any smaller do to code 
restrictions for natural light)

Michael Cochran