Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: 10/lw term in calculation of rho

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Mark D., 

You shouldn't need to argue with the building official - have them call the
Authors' of the blue book. They will back you up on the correct
interpretation of the Code. I went to that same seminar (SEAOC, Seismic
Design Seminar) in Seattle that was mentioned earlier. Some of the committee
members said that they would help out when necessary on Code interpretation
issues (correct me if I am wrong).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gina T. Gobo, E.I.T.
Structural Engineering
DLR Group, Seattle
Phone: 206-461-6000
E-Mail: ggobo(--nospam--at)dlrgroup.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mark E. Deardorff [SMTP:MEDeardorff(--nospam--at)home.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, October 27, 1999 3:39 PM
> To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject:	RE: 10/lw term in calculation of rho
> 
> No. I am not sure. I was just reporting rumor I had heard from Gerry
> Neville. The liklihood is that our
> office will limit 10/lw to 1 based on the Blue Book. And I will argue with
> plan checkers like I always do!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yousefi, Ben [mailto:Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)ci.sj.ca.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 12:41 PM
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject: RE: 10/lw term in calculation of rho
> 
> 
> Are you sure about this mark?
> 
> As far as I can tell the same language is included in the 2000 IBC for
> shear
> wall ri calculation. There were two attempts by APA in March and September
> hearings to insert a language the would change the 10/lw to 4/lw for wood
> shear walls (which IMO makes a lot of sense) but on both occasions it was
> withdrawn.
> 
> So it may be until 2003 IBC that the Rho issues are revised from the
> current
> format.
> 
> Ben Yousefi, SE
> San Jose, CA
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From:	Mark E. Deardorff [SMTP:MEDeardorff(--nospam--at)home.com]
> 	Sent:	Wednesday, October 27, 1999 11:37 AM
> 	To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> 	Subject:	RE: 10/lw term in calculation of rho
> 
> 	Of course, it will not be corrected in the code until the 2000 IBC.
> If plan checkers want to, they can still require the 10/lw value to exceed
> 1.
> 
> 		-----Original Message-----
> 		From: Steve Pryor [mailto:spryor(--nospam--at)strongtie.com]
> 		Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 10:28 AM
> 		To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> 		Subject: RE: 10/lw term in calculation of rho
> 
> 
> 
> 		This has now been clarified in the (just published) 1999
> Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary (SEAOC Blue Book).
> 
>