Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02 Experts

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Noted.

Barry H. Welliver
barrywelliver2(--nospam--at)earthlink.net
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Harold Sprague [mailto:spraguehope(--nospam--at)hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:10 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02 Experts

Barry,

My contribution was based on discussions in code development meetings.  Keep

in mind that wood degradation due to decay or fire or moisture changes or 
shrinkage is a problem more than corrosion in metal or in reinforced 
concrete.

Regards,
Harold Sprague





>From: "Barry H. Welliver" <barrywelliver2(--nospam--at)earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
>To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
>Subject: RE: ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02 Experts
>Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:49:00 -0600
>
>Thanks Scott.
>
>Is there a specific commentary on section 6.2.2.3.1.5?
>
>I guess I'm confused by the wording in the cited section 6.2.2.3. If the
>presumption is that differential settlement is addressed with a "vertical
>movement joint", then "where are the bodies?"
>
>Also, you mention 12 feet as the maximum single story height considered
>reasonable for fire safety. Does this imply 12 ft off the ground or 12 ft 
>of
>masonry height (at levels above 12 ft.)
>
>I know Harold Sprague has suggested the arguments for this provision
>(6.2.2.3.1.5) were born of considerations for a falling height of 12 or
>greater, but I'm trying to be engineer here and do what is right for my
>client without tripping over the code.
>
>To help those who may be interested (or tired) in why I'm nit-picking, I
>have a two story existing concrete home with a wood frame roof with
>projecting eaves. The architect is proposing to add a limestone cornice
>(veneer) wrapping the roof edge. This would be 20 or so feet above grade 
>and
>I've envisioned a double microlam fascia supported by microlam cantilever
>beams. The members are significantly stronger than required by analysis and
>the veneer attachments would be screwed to this backing. If fire is a
>primary consideration, I could use triple members and perhaps achieve a
>heavy timber rating.
>
>Any help in justifying or trashing this solution would be appreciated.
>
>Barry H. Welliver
>barrywelliver2(--nospam--at)earthlink.net
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 9:49 AM
>To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>Subject: RE: ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02 Experts
>
>Barry:
>
>Here is what the commentary of the 2002 MSJC says for section 6.2.2.3:
>
>"Support of anchored veneer on wood is permitted in previous model
>building codes.  The vertical movement joint between the veneer on
>different supports reduces the possibility of cracking due to differential
>settlement.  The height limit of 12 ft (3.7 m) was considered to be
>maximum single story height and is considered to a reasonable fire safety
>risk."
>
>It would appear that some of the concern of supporting masonry on wood is
>due to the combustible nature of the wood (but that may just be me reading
>"between the lines").
>
>HTH,
>
>Scott
>Adrian, MI
>
>On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Scott Maxwell wrote:
>
> > 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Your following message has been delivered to the list
> >   seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org at 17:59:21 on 27 Aug 2004.
> > 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Barry:
> >
> > Harold has already provided you with some good comments.  I will add to
> > his comments that historically it was not permitted to support any 
>masonry
> > on wood construction with some very limited exceptions.  A good example 
>is
> > in the 1997 UBC (Chapter 21, I believe but don't remember for sure as I
> > don't have it right in front of me).  I believe (going from memory here)
> > that older versions of the MSJC (ACI 530, etc) had similar
> > restrictions/limitations, but that changed in the 2002 MSJC.  As I am
> > currently out of town, I don't have the 2002 MSJC in front of me at the
> > moment, but I will endevour to remember to look at it when I get home 
>and
> > see if they have any relevant commentary for that section.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Scott
> > Adrian, MI
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Barry H. Welliver wrote:
> >
> > > I'm just up from my nap.
> > >
> > > I appreciate your insight on this matter Harold. I was afraid there 
>was
> > > "thinking" along this line. By your comments, I presume there is 
>little
> > > explanation of this in the new commentary and applaud your intention 
>to
> > > follow through at your code development meeting.
> > >
> > > My own experience with code change proposals has reinforced the need 
>for
> > > good commentaries to help the users grasp a changed or new provision. 
>I
>also
> > > realize how difficult writing those commentaries can be. Perhaps if 
>the
> > > proponents where required to provide verbiage for the associated
>commentary
> > > (to be published at the same time) the essence of the arguments would
>also
> > > have to be agreed to.
> > >
> > > I try to keep copies of the code change proposals specifically because
>they
> > > contain information about the logic of the proposition. I'm familiar
>with
> > > this in the IBC process. Is there a similar source for ACI/ASCE/TMS
> > > approvals?
> > >
> > > Thanks again for being a well-spring of information for this listserv.
> > >
> > > Barry H. Welliver
> > > barrywelliver2(--nospam--at)earthlink.net
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Harold Sprague [mailto:spraguehope(--nospam--at)hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:05 PM
> > > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > > Subject: RE: ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02 Experts
> > >
> > > Barry,
> > > I happened to be awake during the time that this was discussed in some
>of my
> > >
> > > seismic code development participation.
> > >
> > > This was a reaction to a lobby by the residential building community.
>Prior
> > >
> > > to this, it was prohibited to support ANY masonry from wood.  The
>resulting
> > > code was a compromise.  But masonry should not be supported by wood if
>the
> > > masonry is 12 ft from grade.  The argument presented at the time had
>nothing
> > >
> > > to do with the weight supported by wood.  The argument presented was 
>for
> > > prohibition of a falling hazard.   I am sure that I could design wood 
>to
> > > support much more than what the code infers.  We have been remiss in
> > > Commentary development.  I will make it a point to discuss this at our
>next
> > > code development meeting... right after my nap.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Harold Sprague
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "Barry H. Welliver" <barrywelliver2(--nospam--at)earthlink.net>
> > > >Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> > > >To: "Seaint Listserv" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> > > >Subject: ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02 Experts
> > > >Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:54:06 -0600
> > > >
> > > >First of all I have to say keeping up with "code changes" is adding
>grey
> > > >hair on a daily basis now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >An exception in section 6.2.2.3.1.5 allows support of masonry veneer 
>on
> > > >wood
> > > >framing provided that the masonry has an installed weight of 40 psf 
>or
>less
> > > >and height of no more than 12 ft.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  My understanding of the 12 feet is a veneer weighing less that 40 
>psf
>up
> > > >to
> > > >that height (i.e. 40 psf x 12 ft.) is the maximum load allowed for 
>wood
> > > >support. It has been suggested that this means masonry weighing 40 
>psf
> > > >cannot be installed higher than 12 above the ground. If this (second
> > > >suggestion) is correct, I'd like to know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Secondly, if this provision is intended to limit the weight of 
>masonry
> > > >being
> > > >supported (and that's a big if), then would a single stone (such as a
> > > >lintel, jamb or sill stone) which has a density exceeding 40 psf but
>weighs
> > > >significantly less than 40 psf x 12 feet, be "acceptable" as a 
>rational
> > > >interpretation (and hence be supportable on wood framing).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Thanks for any help on understanding this "new" provision. As you 
>might
> > > >tell
> > > >from my "inexperience" with ACI 530-02, I've yet to get this resource
>and
> > > >associated commentary.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Barry H. Welliver
> > > >
> > > >barrywelliver2(--nospam--at)earthlink.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools
>and
> > > more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
> > >
> > >
> > > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > > *   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
> > > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > > *   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
> > > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> > >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   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
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
>
>******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>*   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
>******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
>
>******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>*   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
>******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

_________________________________________________________________
Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to 
School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx


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



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