Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Conv. Constr. one direction[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re: Conv. Constr. one direction
- From: "Ed Workman" <eworkman(--nospam--at)fix.net>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:26:55 -0700
-----Original Message----- From: Livingston, Michael <mike.livingston(--nospam--at)intres.com> To: 'seaoc' <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org> Date: Monday, July 26, 1999 11:14 AM Subject: Conv. Constr. one direction > >However, in the other direction, where there are long party walls, the >engineer stated that Conventional Construction criteria were met, so he just >put in gyp. bd. shear walls. When we work the loads backwards from his >calculations, these walls would be overstressed using the loading for his >designed direction. > >My questions: Was there anything in the code that said you could use >conventional framing requirements in one direction even if these >requirements weren't met in the orthagonal direction Does the "gyp direction" meet all conventional construction requirements? Does the "other" direction create extraordinary torsions which would defeat the concept of conventional construction? If YES, NO in that order then it seems that your question is merely a technicality and that the behavior of a building of the same mass, etc but conventional in the ortogonal direction would show the same identical results and perform, in thae conventional direction, the same. Do we want an engineering answer or a plaintiff answer?
- Prev by Subject: Re: Conv. Constr. one direction
- Next by Subject: Re: Conv. Constr. one direction
- Previous by thread: Re: Conv. Constr. one direction
- Next by thread: Re: Conv. Constr. one direction