Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Redundancy Factor

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Your efforts are admirable. I have an opinion as to the your findings. 
However, I can only assume for the equation that this was the intent 
(although Ron Hamburges comments were very informative):

It appears that there non-calculated interior partitions with various 
different finishes are thought to help dampen the displacment of the 
diaphragm and reduce torsion. However, their stiffness is so much smaller 
than walls specifically designed to resist the diaprhagm that the interior 
partitions are not believed to be effective until the in interior partitions 
are forced into excessive deflection (although still within code allowables). 
At this point, the code expects the lateal force to be magnified so as to 
force the designed walls to be even stiffer. I have not been able to 
determine if there is an established limit expected before the effects of the 
interior partitions are considered.

I tend to agree with your comments (I may not be willing to call the whole 
think bogus :>) but am of the opinion that since there is no way to calculate 
the effects of the interior walls we should not consider them nor penalize 
designed shearwalls to due to their absence.


In a message dated 7/30/99 5:48:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
cgreenlaw(--nospam--at) writes:

<<  This change gives
 the same seismic W and uses the same shear wall schedule as before, but
 bigger floor area A sub B. Now rho is 1.23, a substantial increase over 0.93
 for the same bldg wt W, and the same shear walls as before. What's
 "rational" in that?  >>