Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Wood: Are you as confused as I?????

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
It could be that this is due to a statement regarding Section 91.2315.1 about
not considering torsion.  Apparently, this section is only intended to address
open front buildings and modifies what is in the UBC.  I think Dennis may be
able to expand on this much more.

ed gonzalez

>>> <SDGSE(--nospam--at)> 08/17/99 11:31AM >>>
I just received a call from Steve Iconda of the City of L.A., Code Section, 
regarding my post of 8/16/99 (attached below), which was forwarded to him by 
Henry Wong of the City of L.A. (apparently a lurking plan checker). Mr. 
Iconda asked me why I was making such a statement. My reply was that I did 
not make the statement. I only quoted and questioned what FSRahbar(--nospam--at) 
stated, and whether it was true. After some discussion about the subject of 
rigid vs. flexible diaphragms, Mr. Iconda denied such policy adoption by the 
City of L.A.

Mr. Wong, in the future, please forward the complete and uncut posts as to 
who said what.

Oshin Tosounian, S.E.

My previous post:

<< In a message dated 8/16/99 9:45:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
 << I understand that City of Los Angeles has adopted the "Wood Diaphragm = 
  Flexible" policy, which is great.  >>
 This is what I have hoped would happen. However, isn't this against the code 
 adoption process, where localities must adopt no less stringent code 
 provisions? Unless, the rigidity analysis in the UBC, as L.A. sees it, was 
 not meant to be applied to wood diaphragm. Otherwise, it would go against 
 City of L.A.'s "No rotation or more than 15% cantilever in wood diaphragms" 
 Oshin Tosounian, S.E. >>