Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Effects of the New Code on Wood structures - good or bad?????[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Effects of the New Code on Wood structures - good or bad?????
- From: Byainc(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 18:55:30 EDT
chuckuc wrote: > The fact of the matter is that many the wood framed structures did not perform > acceptably during the Northridge earthquake. As a consequence, some very > knowledgeable and experienced engineers have proposed changes in the Code in > order to improve the performance of wood frame construction. Design loads have > been increased and we are now being asked to evaluate our structures a little > more carefully. That is going to include an evaluation of rigid and flexible > diaphragm performance, like it or not. Lynn Howard wrote: "Really!! And just where do you get your information from on this? I would be VERY interested in getting ANY data on low rise residential type structures that had plywood diaphragms and plywood shear walls that did not perform up to a life-safety level of performance during the Northridge earthquake." (Ben Yousefi) : Right on Lynn! I think it is exactly the type of assumption stated above that has led to this hoopla about the wood diaphragm rigidity calculations. Some engineers have bought into the idea that just because some reputable people (with possibly good intentions) are banging their drums about this issue, they must be right and the rest of us are wrong and should follow. Instead, I, like to you, and many others who have asked this question before would like to ask the proponents of this methodology: Where is the proof? (or should I say where is the pudding)! Show me any documentation that because of the erroneous assumption of diaphragm rigidity, the performance of a wood light frame building was adversely affected in a recent quake, and I will forever hold my peace on this subject. And please don't tell me that these building haven't been tested yet. Thousands of these types of structures have been built with this assumption and have been subjected to several good sized shakings such as Whittier, Loma Prieta and the Northridge. I was a member of the ICBO lateral design committee for the entire duration of 97 UBC code hearings and never ever was any argument made, nor evidence presented about the poor performance of diaphragm or shear walls because of the flexible assumption and no attempt was made to correct this phantom problem either. I do, however, want to clarify that I am not claiming that no wood framed building suffered serious damage in Northridge. I, along with many others, witnessed considerable damage (may be not life safety) to wood buildings. However, the 97 UBC, in my opinion, tried to address many of these issues properly. The Reduced H/W ratio of 2:1 for shear wall was an excellent change. Other requirements such as increased bolt size and 3x framing members at certain locations were good steps. And some general requirements for all buildings, such as the inclusion of redundancy coefficients were major accomplishments. But all those are being overshadowed by this puny of an issue on diaphragms, and the 97 UBC is not getting the credit it needs for at least trying to address many real issues. Ben Yousefi, SE San Jose, CA
- Prev by Subject: Re: Effects of the New Code on Wood structures - good or bad?????
- Next by Subject: Re: Effects of the New Code on Wood structures - good or bad?????
- Previous by thread: Re: Effects of the New Code on Wood structures - good or bad?????
- Next by thread: Re: Effects of the New Code on Wood structures - good or bad?????