Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Wood: Are you as confused as I?????[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Wood: Are you as confused as I?????
- From: Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:17:24 EDT
In a message dated 8/17/99 12:48:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Eagonzal(--nospam--at)ENG.CI.LA.CA.US writes: << 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 >> If I recall correctly, this section was adopted to compensate for soft-story failures where there was no lateral support provided at the open front. The original methodology allowed for the shear due to torsion to be redistributed to the three remaining walls which proved to be in inaccurate assumption considering the structure failed the same as would be expected from an open box with the support of the flaps. The deformation at the front caused considerable deformation to the point that the garage header / column or pier filed and the roof collapsed. I also recall that the provision was intended ONLY for open front structures with living units above. Garages were still allowed to be designed by torsion since they were considered a low risk. Someone still in Los Angeles may be of more accurate memory than I. Dennis S. Wish PE
- Prev by Subject: Re: Wood: Are you as confused as I?????
- Next by Subject: Re: Wood: Are you as confused as I?????
- Previous by thread: Re: Wood: Are you as confused as I?????
- Next by thread: Re: Wood: Are you as confused as I?????