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

Re: Software Developers participation in list discussions

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I have often taken the liberty of using the projection of the wall onto the plane of concern and used the projected lengths of the wall for rigidity and load distributions.  I cannot confirm at this time how accurate that is but I have felt comfortable that I have included an element that does have an impact on the overall wall geometry distributions.  In other words if the projection of the wall is greater than 4ft then I have contribution to the plane I am analyzing(?).  If this valid then the walls can be any angle (?).  Secondary (?) twist on the walls due to this concept, for aspect H/L ratios less than 2:1, would be negligible (?).

Thor A Tandy P.Eng, MCSCE
Victoria BC
e-mail: vicpeng(--nospam--at)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: Software Developers participation in list discussions

Question to the audience:
Exactly how does one implement non-orthogonal walls into the flexible
diaphragm theory?  We at Keymark are not convinced that such walls have
meaning within a strict interpretation of flexible theory.  It is much more
straightforward to utilize non-orthogonal wall in the rigid theory.  We
intend to support the use of non-orthogonal walls in the rigid diaphragm
theory as soon as possible.