Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Building from 1969 (more info)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

I quickly reviewed the PML after I sent my message and I found the following:

 

1 of the 3 buildings does not have tuck under parking and it was given a separate PML.

 

  • The PML for the 2 buildings with tuck under parking were 27%
  • The PML for the 1 building without tuck under parking was 17%
  • The total for the complex was 24%

 

So since there is a 10% difference, one can deduce (since it isn’t clearly stated) that the soft-story assumption rather than the conventional construction of the wood framed structure is putting the PML number above the magical 20% limit.

 

So again, I feel that if I can prove the tuck under condition is no worse than the conventional construction above, only very minor things like beefing up the drag/collectors, rather than trying to install new moment frames or shotcrete the existing cmu walls would be necessary and the PML should be below 20% and more likely the 17% quoted previous if the structure was spread footings rather than posts and cmu walls.

 

Any comments?

 

-gerard

Santa Clara, CA