Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Redundancy factor 1.0 for single story wood framed?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Yes, Bill

We do care.  Thank you for sharing your insight.


Sharon Robertson Bonds, PE
Salerno/Livingston Architects
363 Fifth Avenue, Third Floor
San Diego, California  92101
(619) 234-7471

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Bill Allen, S.E. [SMTP:Bill(--nospam--at)jrma.com]
	Sent:	Thursday, November 09, 2000 4:42 PM
	To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
	Subject:	RE: Redundancy factor 1.0 for single story wood
framed?

	4/lw? Where did THAT come from? Where have I been?

	According to Dick Phillips, alledgedly the author of "10/lw", it was
NEVER
	intended to be a penalty for short shear walls, but an "aid" to long
shear
	walls. Doesn't anyone care WHY things are in the Code anymore? The
intent of
	"10/lw" was to remove the penalty on those long shear walls by
considering
	them to be a collection of shear walls with a length of 10 ft each.

	Based on this, the concept that "10/lw" is NOT a penalty for short
shear
	walls should apply to more structures than merely one story wood
framed
	buildings. IMO, the code should read, wherever referencing "10/lw"
to
	"10/lw>1".

	Even though the IBC 2000 is not being adopted, don't plan check
officials
	have a copy on their shelves and/or don't they follow comments on
this list
	and position statements presented by SEAOC? Anyone going to ask why
this
	feature was adopted into the IBC 2000?

	If not, maybe SEAOC can prepare a position paper like they have done
on a
	couple of other issues. These have been very helpful considering
there are
	no off year corrections to the 1997 UBC.

	Regards,

	Bill Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)



	-----Original Message-----
	From: Lynn [mailto:lhoward(--nospam--at)silcom.com]
	Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 3:17 PM
	To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
	Subject: Re: Redundancy factor 1.0 for single story wood framed?


	Paul-
	Thanks, but I think Ben answered my question for me.
	It was that the 10/lw was changed to 4/lw for wood
	frame

	Paul Feather wrote:
	>
	> Lynn,
	> The only proposal I am aware of is that 10/lw should not exceed
1.0 for
	wood
	> shear walls, I can look up the paper later if you would like.
	>
	> I am not aware of any limitation on Rho
	>
	> Paul Feather
	>
	> ----- Original Message -----
	> From: "Lynn" <lhoward(--nospam--at)silcom.com>
	> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
	> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:55 AM
	> Subject: Redundancy factor 1.0 for single story wood framed?
	>
	> > I thought I had read on this list that there was an
	> > official proposal or some kind of document put out by
	> > SEAOC that was recommending a change in the code to
	> > allow the use of Rho to be 1.0 for one story wood
	> > framed structures (or was it just residential
	> > structures?).
	> >
	> > I have reviewed the archives of the "list", and have
	> > found there has been a lot of discussion on the matter,
	> > but I could not find the document I was looking for.
	> >
	> > Is there any kind of a document circulating that is
	> > proposing that Rho can be 1.0 for all one and two story
	> > light wood framed structures?
	> >
	> > Thanks
	> >
	> > Lynn
	> >
	> >
	>