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: Gerard Madden <GerardM(--nospam--at)CRJARCH.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:41:41 -0700
Ben Y, Where in the code does it require that rho be applied to diaphragms? If I am not mistaken, Fpx (not Eh) is used for the forces on diaphragms. Gerard Madden, P.E. Civil Engineer, Associate CRJ Associates, Inc. email: gerardm(--nospam--at)crjarch.com tel: 650.324.0691 fax: 650.324.0927 web: www.crjarch.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Yousefi, Ben [SMTP:Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)ci.sj.ca.us] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 12:22 PM > To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org' > Subject: RE: 10/lw term in calculation of rho > > 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]