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

RE: Flat Plate in Seismic Zone 4

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Oops.  I meant that you are obviously using the 1994 UBC.  Rw is 1994 UBC.
R is 1997 UBC.

The last 2 UBC's don't mix well.

I saw another post that made a similar error.  

If the R value is correct to the nearest 10th of a decimal.  It is probably
the 1997 UBC.  The authors of the 1994 UBC did not have fresh batteries and
listed the Rw values to whole numbers.  Humor intended.

Harold Sprague

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Sprague, Harold O. 
> Sent:	Tuesday, May 09, 2000 1:27 PM
> To:	'seaint(--nospam--at)'
> Subject:	RE: Flat Plate in Seismic Zone 4
> Obviously you are using the 1997 UBC.  
> You should be meeting the intent of the code.  Don't forget the
> deformation compatibility using the 3*Rw/8 and the P-delta effect on the
> columns.
> Regards,
> Harold Sprague
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From:	M. A. Mufti [SMTP:mam(--nospam--at)]
> 	Sent:	Wednesday, April 26, 2000 11:08 AM
> 	To:	seaint(--nospam--at)
> 	Subject:	Flat Plate in Seismic Zone 4
> 	I am designing a building in seismic zone 4. The architect has
> proposed
> 	a flat plate structure on rc columns with concrete shear walls.
> 	Of course, dual system is out of the question as UBC and ACI do not
> 	allow
> 	flat plate as a lateral force resisting system in zone 4. Can we
> design
> 	the structure as a Building Frame System with Rw=8 with shear walls
> 	taking 100% of seismic force and designing the flat plate system for
> 	gravity loads and seismic moments induced by deformation
> compatibility.
> 	This frame will be designed as Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
> without
> 	detailing for ductility.
> 	If the above works out well, does it fulfil the intent of the code?
> 	M. A. Mufti