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]- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: 10/lw term in calculation of rho
- From: "Yousefi, Ben" <Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)ci.sj.ca.us>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:21:43 -0700
Frank The following was the proposed wording suggested to be inserted after the definition of r-max for all other walls: "For wood structural panel shear walls, r-max shall be taken equal to the shear in the most heavily loaded wall or wall pier multiplied by 4/lw divided by the story shear where lw is the length of the wall in feet." Another interesting fact is that, there was also a proposal to exempt the horizontal diaphragms from application of Rho factor, which also made sense. But that was unfortunately shut down. (The redundancy equations are based on the distribution of loads to vertical lateral force resisting systems. Why would we want to apply that factor to a horizontal diaphragm? ) -----Original Message----- From: FEMCCLURE(--nospam--at)aol.com [SMTP:FEMCCLURE(--nospam--at)aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 2:16 AM To: Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)ci.sj.ca.us; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Cc: FEMCCLURE(--nospam--at)aol.com Subject: Re: 10/lw term in calculation of rho Ben Yousefi, What was the exact wording of the two APA failed attempts to amend the Rho factor in 2000 IBC? Have you reviewed the wording the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book, Section 105.1.1, which states : "The value of the ratio of 10/lw need not be taken as greater than 1.0"? Would that wording help? Frank E. McClure
- Prev by Subject: Re: 10/lw term in calculation of rho
- Next by Subject: Re: 10/lw term in calculation of rho
- Previous by thread: Re: 10/lw term in calculation of rho
- Next by thread: RE: 10/lw term in calculation of rho
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]