Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Rigid vs. Flexible Diaphragm

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I'm aware of the LA City approach (the Bay Area [TriChapter] has adopted it
as well), but why surcharge the "weak/soft" line? The greater load on a
"weak/soft" line will be based on tributary area, i.e, FDA, so why add
anymore load to that line?

Allowing an option to RDA is an improvement, but penalizing the "weak" line
by 20% is still excessive <insert obligatory "IMHO" here> when a RDA/FDA
envelope would show, and which *most* critical thinking, rational engineers
would agree based on observation of the model alone, that the maximum load
on the "weak" line is obtained from the FDA approach.

I believe that the 20% broadbrush approach is good, but only when it's not

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)
San Juan Capistrano, CA

:-----Original Message-----
:From: Stanley E Scholl [mailto:sscholl2(--nospam--at)]
:Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:49 PM
:To: seaint(--nospam--at)
:Subject: Re: Rigid vs. Flexible Diaphragm
:well said, Dennis. Too bad that a few building officials continue to try
:to require rigid analysis for everything. I like the LA City approach.
:They allow flexible analysis but require us to add 20% surcharge to the
:values obtained.
:Stan Scholl, P.E.
:Laguna Beach, CA

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********