Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
Re: Definition of A sub B in Rho evaluation
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re: Definition of A sub B in Rho evaluation
- From: "Paul Feather" <pfeather(--nospam--at)san.rr.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:30:46 -0700
Paul Reilly wrote: > > Larger Ab reduces the ratio of total shear (story level 1) to the unit > shear of the wall being considered. For a single shearwall, increasing Ab > reduces the value of rho. Rho is intentionally (and unjustly) punitive to > light-frame construction and as the demand forces are artificially > increased by a big rho, you may have the opportunity to increase Ab (by > interpretation), which may counter a reduction in the value of rho, which > will reduce demand forces, that may require less hardware to facilitate > capacities, that may be interpreted as less conservative, because you have > realized a minor reduction of the monstrous fairy tale of rho... eg. A > fair price may be seventy-five cents. They charged you a dollar. For > twenty-cents more, you may realize a five-cent return. It (rho) is a > bureaucratic masterpiece. > I am not sure I follow all this, but my interpretation would be different. r is simply a ratio, (vi / V) For a given number of resisting elements the size of Ab should not effect r. If the building is larger (increased Ab), the base shear V is larger (more building), and the element shear is proportionally larger (higher base shear with same number of resisting elements = higher element shear). r is essentially constant. I am assuming no increase in wall length or number of elements for purposes of discussion. Since rho is calculated as 2 - 20/r*sqrt(Ab), as Ab increases rho will increase getting closer to 2. This in turn will increase the base shear V and the element shear vi. I do not see how a larger Ab is unconservative. For example I like to look at a box with walls on four sides. If the box is 10 x 10, Ab is small and the box is fairly redundant. If the box is 100 x 100, Ab is larger and the box is considered less redundant. This makes sense to me if you think in terms of demand on single elements (diaphragm, chords, drags, etc.) Anyway, my two cents worth, Paul Feather ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to * admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message type * "join seaint" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email * to admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message * type "leave seaint" (no quotes). For questions, send * email to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: Definition of A sub B in Rho evaluation
- From: Bill Allen
- RE: Definition of A sub B in Rho evaluation
- References:
- RE: Definition of A sub B in Rho evaluation
- From: Paul_Reilly
- RE: Definition of A sub B in Rho evaluation
- Prev by Subject: RE: Definition of A sub B in Rho evaluation
- Next by Subject: RE: Definition of A sub B in Rho evaluation
- Previous by thread: Seismic Design Manual Volume II - More Rho
- Next by thread: RE: Definition of A sub B in Rho evaluation
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]