Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: 97 UBC 1618.104.22.168 Out-of-plane wall anchorage to flex diap (c oncr or cmu walls)[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: 97 UBC 1622.214.171.124 Out-of-plane wall anchorage to flex diap (c oncr or cmu walls)
- From: Gerard Madden <GerardM(--nospam--at)CRJARCH.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:34:56 -0800
E) All of the above I use C) for all failure modes in conjunction with 0.85Fp only when I have to. Basically, when I can't make the design work for 1.0 Fp for wood and bolts in wood, I take advantage of the 0.85Fp. When that doesn't work, I go get a coke. 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: Swingle, Mark [SMTP:Mark.Swingle(--nospam--at)dgs.ca.gov] > Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 3:25 PM > To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org' > Cc: 'mswingle(--nospam--at)earthlink.net' > Subject: 97 UBC 16126.96.36.199 Out-of-plane wall anchorage to flex diap > (concr or cmu walls) > > This section of the 1997 UBC gives specific design criteria for anchorage > of > concrete or masonry walls (out-of-plane) to flexible diaphragms. These > specific criteria are to be used with the Fp equations in Section 1632. > > Paragraph 4 of 16188.8.131.52 specifies that demands on STEEL components of > the > anchorage system are to be increased by a factor of 1.4, in addition to > all > other criteria. > > Paragraph 5 of 16184.108.40.206 specifies that demands on WOOD components of the > anchorage system may be decreased by 15% (multiplied by 0.85), in addition > to all other criteria. > > My question is this: Is a bolt bearing on wood deemed to be a STEEL > member > or a WOOD member? > > So far, I see four possible answers: > > a) Hey dummy, it's obvious: It's a wood member because the bolt bears on > wood. > > b) Hey dummy, it's obvious: It's a steel member because the bolt is made > of > steel. > > c) Hey dummy, it's obvious: It's a wood member for NDS failure modes I > and > II which are governed by wood bearing, and it's a steel member for NDS > failure modes III and IV which are governed by steel yielding. Therefore > pick the controlling demand/capacity ratio. > > d) Hey dummy, who cares? Any of the above methods are defensible in plan > check and in a court of law since the code is so full of holes. > > Which one do you vote for, a), b), c), or d)? > > Mark Swingle, SE > Oakland, CA > > >
- Prev by Subject: Re: 97 UBC 1633.2.4 Deformation compatibilty - is that a typo?
- Next by Subject: 97 UBC 16220.127.116.11 Out-of-plane wall anchorage to flex diap (concr or cmu walls)
- Previous by thread: RE: ASTM C-913 vs. ACI 350
- Next by thread: Go Direct for your Code Questions at seismo-all(--nospam--at)seaint.org