Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: A little help, please!

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
It says "permissible" so I understand that you can use the 2 times the
drift criteria as long as this diaphragm deflection amount does not
exceed the permissible deflection of the attached elements, so
therefore I don't think it is contradictory.

WH

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 2:18 PM,  <ECVAl3(--nospam--at)aol.com> wrote:
> I'm a bit confused. Could someone clarify this for me, please.
>
> The IBC Section 2305.2.1 states: "Wood diaphragms are permitted to be used
> to resist horizontal forces
>  provided the deflection in the plane of the diaphragm, as determined by
> calculations..., does not exceed the permissible deflection of attached
> distributing or resisting elements..."
>
> But the ASCE Section 12.3.1.3 Calculated Flexible Diaphragm Condition,
> states: "Diaphragms...are permitted to be idealized as flexible where the
> computed maximum in-plane deflection..is more than 2 times the average story
> drift of adjoining vertical elements of the seismic force-resisting
> system..."
>
> Are these contradictory requirements or am I reading them wrong?
>
> S.Macie. P.E.
> SLO, CA
>
>
> ________________________________
> Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008.

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