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

RE: Magnified Moments - UBC Section 1910.13

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Oshin:

I don't follow the part about magnifying "the moments due to the
lateral loads to 2 or 2.5 times".

If P is small and V is big (which is what you indicate), then Q is
also very small and the magnification becomes insignificant.  In fact,
according to Section 1910.11.4.2, if Q is less than 0.05 (as it may
well be in the case you have described), you may call the system
"nonsway" and comply with Section 1910.12.

-Mike

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael Valley, P.E., S.E.                   E-mail: mtv(--nospam--at)skilling.com
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc.              Tel:(206)292-1200
1301 Fifth Ave, #3200,  Seattle  WA 98101-2699      Fax:        -1201

-----Original Message-----
From: SDGSE(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:SDGSE(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 1:32 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Magnified Moments - UBC Section 1910.13


Does section 1910.13 of the 97 UBC apply to piles supporting grade
beams with
retaining wall on top. The axial load is the self weight of the wall
and
grade beams which is very small compared to the lateral load due to
the earth
pressure. The piles act mainly as cantilevered beams. IMHO, to magnify
the
moments due to the lateral loads to 2 or 2.5 times is somewhat
excessive for
this condition, unless it is meant to magnify the moments due to the
axial
loads only, which makes more sense. Your input is appreciated.

Oshin Tosounian, S.E.