Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: 2003 IEBC vs 1997 UCBC URM shear wall capacity

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Taking a guess since I am not familiar with either, but here goes...  I beleive the UCBC eqn is for working stress loads, while the IEBC eqn is for factored load combinations.  That would explain the 0.5 vs. 0.9...
In previous URM retrofits under '94 UCBC, I remember using 1/2 of the wall pier weight for rocking resistance.  It gave reasonable values without being overly conservative.

David A. Topete, S.E.

Wildman & Morris
201 Mission Street, Suite 540
San Francisco, CA 94105
P:   (415) 896-2644
F:   (415) 896-2636
David.Topete(--nospam--at)wildman-morris.com



"Marc Mitchell" <mitchell.marc(--nospam--at)gmail.com>

11/01/2006 11:59 AM

Please respond to
<seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>

To
seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
cc
Subject
2003 IEBC vs 1997 UCBC URM shear wall capacity





Why is the equation for rocking shear capacity Vr = 0.5*PD*D/H in the UCBC and Vr = 0.9*PD*D/H in the IEBC?  From a statics standpoint the UCBC is the correct formula, isn't it?  Also PD is defined in both as "...dead load at the top of the pier under consideration..."  Why wouldn't you use the self weight of the wall acting at the centroid to resist rocking as well?
Regards,
Marc Mitchell