Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Taking Questions for Seismology Submission

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I guess it depends on what is meant by "when supported by analysis." If it
is to calculate the shear wall deflection based on the four term equation
found in the UBC standards and compare it to Dm < 0.025 * h, based on some
of the walls for which I have done calculations, h/b = 2 have a difficult
time complying.

Bill Allen, S.E.
Laguna Niguel, CA

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seaintonln(--nospam--at) [mailto:Seaintonln(--nospam--at)]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 9:44 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)
> Subject: Re: Taking Questions for Seismology Submission
> In a message dated 8/18/99 9:26:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> Bill(--nospam--at) writes:
> << I, for one, would be interested in an answer to Oshin
> Tosounian's question
>  about h/b vs. deflection calculations of plywood shear walls.
>  Bill Allen, S.E.
>  Laguna Niguel, CA >>
> Michael Valley responded to the questions with:
> "Two sections of the UBC may do what you want here.  Section
> 1629.10.1
> says "Alternative lateral-force procedures using rational analyses
> based on well-established principles of mechanics may be used in lieu
> of those prescribed in these provisions."  Section 1632.5 provides a
> similar allowance.  These sections are provided to allow designs that
> aren't strictly code-compliant when sufficient engineering is
> provided.
> The key words in your question are "when supported by analysis."
> Is this a valid solution to the problem that allows the
> engineer to exceed or
> disregard the ratio as long as he can provide sufficient
> analysis to prove
> that the deflection is within code allowable? This was how
> prior codes
> handled walls that did not meet the H/b ratio.
> Dennis