Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Redundancy Factor

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I completely agree with you on this one.


> As you and others have put forth the question "what has changed since 1988
> UBC to require us to do rigidity analysis on wood floor diaphragm now that
> 1997 UBC is in effect?". I still have not seen or heard an answer other than
> "because it was presented in a seminar as an example." If the code language
> regarding rigidity analysis has not changed since 1988 UBC, why are we
> required to do that on residential wood frame diaphragms NOW and not since
> 1988? If we are going to be liable now for not doing rigidity analysis, why
> aren't we liable for not doing it since 1988, or are we? Some tribute the
> "change" to the aftermath of Northridge earthquake, but again the requirement
> was there since 1988. I don't believe there is a specific language in the
> 1997 code that says "the rigidity analysis is now required for wood frame
> diaphragms as well," so, why consider it now if it was not considered since
> 1988 UBC? If the intent of the 1988 UBC was to require such an analysis on
> wood frame diaphragms, why wasn't it advertised or didn't it become known
> then rather than now?
> Any official explanation or an explanation of an Official? Maybe the authors
> or presenters of the example presented at the wood seminar last year know the
> answer.
> Oshin Tosounian, S.E.