Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: City of Los Angeles hillside ordinance

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Oshin,

Are you referring to the exception of Paragraph 1666.6 in which Secondary
anchors are not required if stem walls at 30 ft. max engage 70% of the
diaphragm depth?  I don't see a similar exception for Primary anchors.  [I'm
working with the 1998 CA Building Code, so I may be missing something in a
later edition].  It does not make sense to me that there would be a similar
exception for Primary anchors because of the need to have a complete Load
path to the foundation; that complete load path is provided by the
Primary-Anchor/Stem-Wall assembly.

For the exception to make sense, the Uphill Foundation would need to be
designed to resist sliding and overturning in the downhill direction due to
the loads from the Secondary Anchors.  I guess this would be possible, but
it would be an unconventional system.

Nels Roselund
Structural Engineer
South San Gabriel, CA
njineer(--nospam--at)att.net




******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********