Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: IBC Wood Shearwalls

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
On 21 Aug 2006 at 17:16, Paul Feather wrote:

> What is the opinion regarding whether or not section 2306.4.1 (40%
> increase in shearwall allowable shear for wind design) is compatible
> with section 1605.3.1 Load Combinations?
> Or would section 2306.4.1 be considered a material increase?
> Us UBC people do not have any provision for increased allowable
> capacities in the shearwall tables for wind design.

Scott Maxwell already replied to the above questions, and I'm in the
same place as he.  I don't have anything to back up how I've inter-
preted this section.  I've taken it as a static rather than cyclic load
> Also, is the .6D with .7E combination an errata? Load combinations
> with E have never been less than .85D.

The .7E is basically the same as E/1.4 which is just adjusting the force to ASD
levels.  If you look at the next set of load combinations, you'll see the E/1.4
instead of the .7E notation.

Take Care,
Lloyd Pack

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