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

RE: UBC '97 Sec 1633.2.4 Deformation compatibility - Question #2

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In seismic evaluation/rehab work I've come across concrete columns
that are "short" due to a very stiff, partial-height infill.  In that
case most of the displacement must be accommodated in the short,
"active" height of the column.  If the column also has very light
transverse reinforcement, poor behavior will result.  In such a case,
consideration of deformation compatibility would indicate the need to
either complete the infill or provide joints at the column to allow
movement over the full height.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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: Attila Beres [mailto:Attila.Beres(--nospam--at)Englekirk.com]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 11:05 AM
To: Seaint Listserver posting
Subject: UBC '97 Sec 1633.2.4 Deformation compatibility - Question #2


Thank you for Mike Valley to correct my misread of the 0.0025
interstory drift value.

Michael Bryson brought up the point about about the reasonableness of
this value. I am curious has anybody came across a structural
component that would have failed under 0.25% drift (0.36" deformation
of a 12' story)?
Attila Beres