Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: re/ Fp Values

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Greenlaw <cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)speedlink.com>
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 1999 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: re/ Fp Values




>And is the parapet's cantilever moment effect at the next level down, which
>acts opposite to the wall's local tributary connector design load, properly
>subtractive from that connector design load down there?

>
>May the negative cantilever parapet moment be used to reduce the positive
>moment in the wall between diaphragm levels below?

Textbook examples show the load on the cantilever and the load on the
"backspan" in the same direction (reducing the positive moment ) .
If one were to look at mode shapes, howwever, one could conclude that the
load on the parapet should be opposite to the load on the backspan
(increasing the positive moment. Since the load can act in either direction
it would also be additive to the connector below.
The present code wording is ridiculous: It is not at all clear.  Trapezoidal
loads, averaging etc. are meaningless complications.
COdewriters: Stick to rational mechanics that can be clearly and simply
stated. Get real