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]
To say the least, your argument below makes my point that 32-2 is too
complicated and should be eaiser to interpret.

I disagree that there is a "rectangular distribution" defined at the
bottom of the panel. What is done with this "rectangular distribution"?
Nothing. Nor is there a "rectangular distribution" at the top. There is
a coefficient determined at each point of attachment and, for the
purposes of the wall panel design, the average between the two is used.
But, to be clear, the coefficient varies linearly according to h_sub_x
and increases with height. To me, that's a triangluar distribution. But
it doesn't really matter since it appears we would both use the same
coefficient to design the wall panel.

With regards to making someone feel stupid, no, hopefully I never do
that. If I do, I have been misunderstood. I just go back to what my
mentor taught me: "Good engineers take complicated problems and make
them simple, not the other way around." So, you see, he would not have
told me that if I had not been guilty of it at least once in my past.


T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)
V/F (949) 248-8588
San Juan Capistrano, CA

:-----Original Message-----
:From: Chris Roper [mailto:christophermroper(--nospam--at)]
:Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 9:20 AM
:To: seaint(--nospam--at)
:Subject: RE: seismic design manual - volume 1 - seaoc
:I would be able to see your reasoning about the distribution if the
:definition of hx did not have the word "attachment" in it, but it does.
:me then, you have a rectangular distribution defined by the attachment
:the top of panel, and a rectangular distribution defined by the
:at the bottom of panel.  The resulting rectangular distribution of
:force used for design of the panel between those two points is the
:of those two distributions.  The coefficient doesn't increase as you go
:The wording isn't such that "hx is the elevation of any given point
:respect to hx."  hx is a fixed point and so is hr.
:Hopefully we're not trying to argue the same point, but in different
:I agree with you 1000% about your concerns of infinitely laborious
:becoming standard practice... for what purpose... to precisely analyze
:structures for lateral loads that are frankly, our best guess.  It
:make sense to me either.  We have to keep in mind though that may of
:people posting questions to this list are at a different level in their
:career and knowledge.  Sometimes you have to analyze things to death a
:times to realize the kinds of things that do and don't control a
:It's a constant learning process.  I would just hate to see people be
:affraid to post questions to this list because they're affraid of being
:to look stupid (not that that's what your intent was.)

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********