From: "Joseph R. Grill" <jbotch(--nospam--at)blissnet.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:08:27 -0700
Non -orthogonal capability will be a help, but, what about
varying plate heights, window and door openings in the walls,
diaphragm inconsistencies due to pitch, openings, intersecting
wings in pitched roofs, dormer openings, etc., etc. In my
opinion, the software won't mean "diddley" until these aspects
are all considered, and tested. Until then, in my opinion, a
flexible diaphragm analysis, is as good as it gets, unless you
are into a design for a "simplistic garage" with a flat roof,
small square dimensions, and shear walls with no openings.
These discussions of rigid vs flexible, shear walls etc. have
been hashed over many times in the last year or so since I've
subscribed to this list. It seems to me, that the possible
introduction of software is directing the design community away
from the discussion of legitimate reasons why, to "well, we've
got the software, so we'll go ahead and comply". The
discussions need to continue.
Joseph Grill, PE
"Mark E. Deardorff" wrote:
> I just got off the phone with Buckman. He says the upgrades
> and bug fixes should continue longer than 90 days. He also
> indicated that the non-orthogonal capability was in
> development as we speak (type?).
> Mark E. Deardorff, SE
> Deardorff & Deardorff, Inc.