Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: seismic design manual - volume 1 - seaoc

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
here's my thoughts to the 3 (mostly) serious responses...

************* Jake Watson, P.E. **************

What is more conservative?  If you place the reinforcing in the center or
the wall, you will end up with more steel by assuming two simple spans.
Secondly, you would need to do a cracked analysis and take into account the
stiffness of each floor if you want a true continuous two span wall.  The
double simple span is not necessarily correct, just more conservative and
significantly easier to calc.

************* Jake Watson, P.E. **************

**da**  jake, i agree - thank you **da**



************* Mike Hemstad, P.E. *****************

However, most engineers, when faced with a
tributary-area problem like this, would figure the
loads as was done here.

**da** that, in itself, doesn't make it right, does it?  **da**

In other words, the far simpler
tributary-area method is more accurate than a
continuous-beam analysis.

**da** is it? what about the negative moment at the floor level?  this is a
wall design, not a slab on grade, elevated slab, roof reaction design.
**da**

This, laziness, and
historical acceptability are the reasons the far less
complex simple-span distribution continues to be used.

**da** not by me... **da**

But yes, you're right, in this case a continuous-beam
analysis would probably more accurately represent the
reactions.

**da**  like i said above, i don't care about the reactions at this point,
i'm just trying to find the real flexural stresses in the wall...  mike,
thank you for your responses.... **da**



**T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. ***

> The load is applied to the studs which act as simple "beams", spanning
> from sill plate to top plate. Trib load to the foundation, 2nd floor and
> roof, respectively.

**da** i would agree wholeheartedly if the second floor interrupted the wall
and there were 2 physical wall elements, one above the floor and one below.
but we are talking about a monolithic wall with full height continuity
**da**
>
> We've got plenty of things to worry about rather than try to make the
> vertical distribution of loads act in accordance with a continuous beam
> distribution.

**da**  you aren't serious are you? **da**

> Let's find something else to make complicated, shall we?

**da** i think i'm supposed to take this as sarcasm, right?  you can call me
silly but i have a real soft spot for mechanics and free body diagrams.
continuous beam analysis isn't THAT hard, is it?  **da**


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions 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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********