Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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


[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 7/8/99 5:52:51 PM EST, Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at) writes:

<< What code change? 
 I am still baffled by why so many people think this is a code change.  The
 fact that this procedure was used in an example problem solved for a code
 change seminar does not make it a code change. The criteria for distribution
 of horizontal forces have not changed since the 88 UBC. 
 Engineers have been designing wood framed buildings assuming the wood
 diaphragm as flexible for the past 10 years (and many years before that)
 since this was incorporated into the code. Numerous buildings designed and
 built with this assumption have been tested in the past earthquakes (Loma
 Prieta, Northridge, etc.).  As far as I know there has been no documentation
 that this assumption led to any significant life safety or even
 non-structural damage. John Rose of APA also previously attested this to in
 an earlier posting on this subject. To the contrary there was substantial
 documentation of damage to buildings that used diaphragm in rotation in
 resisting lateral loads, which is down the path that the new line of
 thinking is leading to.
 Any way, please don't refer to this as a 97 UBC code change. 
 Ben Yousefi, SE
 San Jose, CA

I stand corrected, I should not have referred to this as a code change since 
the diaphragm statements have been in previous editions of the UBC.

Michael Cochran SE