Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Rigid vs Flexible residential diaphragm discussion

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Mark, CERTAINLY there should be options. There should ALWAYS be room in any
building code that allows for, here's a concept, engineering judgement. This
judgement should not only take into consideration the physical
characteristics of the structure, but a reasonable engineering budget as
well. We don't need an elephant gun to go squirrel hunting, do we? What's
next? Time history analysis of residential structures? Oops, I didn't mean
to say that. We don't want to give those code writers any ideas.

Here's another thought (along the lines of a Conspiracy Theory). Most know
that there is a common belief that the authors of computer viruses are the
folks who produce anti-virus software, right?

Could it be possible that the people who are in charge of writing the code
work at the larger engineering companies with significantly larger resources
than the small shops who can afford to write their own software to address
these issues? I have heard a rumor that one such firm (not code writing, but
a larger firm that does a lot of track homes) who has written their own
software has been calling the building officials reminding them to enforce
the rigid diaphragm analysis.

Bill Allen, S.E.
Laguna Niguel, CA

> This is why, I believe, if the code were to ALLOW tributary
> forces to be
> used in all cases (of wood diaps in residential buildings),
> as has been
> proposed by Bill Allen, there should still be the OPTION to
> "consider the
> rigidity".
> Mark Swingle, SE
> Oakland, CA