Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Plwd: Rigid Diaphragm Analysis - Opinions Wanted

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bruce, I can't agree with you more, but I feel that we are stuck to following 
the numbers in the code with very little room for deviation due to the 
liability we carry if we promote a methodology that is less than that which 
code specifies. 

What confuses me is your reference to a simplified static approach. Where in 
the code does it allow the engineer to ignore the diaphragm deflection 
calculation, the need to design for torsion or the need to design shear 
elements based on rigidity?

It seems that the only simplified approach suggested in the code is for the 
calculation of Rho and Omega such as in a residence where it is not required 
unless you are dealing with mixed structural systems or transfering shear 
from a wall to a frame or columns below. 

Can you be more specific in case I am missing something that will simplify 
engineers approach without opening them to liability?

Thanks
Dennis

In a message dated 7/13/99 6:55:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Parkerres(--nospam--at)aol.com writes:

<< Dennis -
 
 I tend to agree with your assumptions, but still must ask the question, "Is 
 the building any better off for all the effort and analysis that it is 
 receiving?"
 
 It is for all of the complications outlined in your posting that we are 
 currently sticking with the Simplified Static method as noted in my posting 
a 
 week or so ago.  The forces are a bit high, but the analysis is still 
 "flexible diaphragm" and relatively easy to figure.
 
 After you're done with one of your problems, it would be interesting to 
 compare the results using the two different analysis methods.
 
 Bruce Resnick, SE
 Parker Resnick Str. Eng. >>