Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Horizontal Irregularities

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Doug, they've all looked fine here.


In a message dated 11/3/08 1:59:06 PM, doug.mayer(--nospam--at) writes:
Grrr…I don’t know why my responses to William’s post are coming out garbled like that…sorry about the junk.  Anyway, one last time, here is my reply to William’s last post:
Agreed that the (possible) increased nailing requirement would only be along the boundary edge.  However, the way the code table reads is that to achieve the listed diaphragm capacity, the specified boundary AND edge nailing must be used.  It doesn't seem it would follow the intent of the table if you used 2.5" spacing only at the boundary edge and then immediately switched to 6" o.c. for all other edges after removing the 25% increase.
Doug Mayer, SE
From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmse4603(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:42 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Horizontal Irregularities

It applies to the
boundary nailing in wood diaphragms, deck welds and shear studs to boundaries in metal deck w/ conc. etc...

Where the diaphragm shear is not at a boundary (i.e. support in your diaphragm shear diagram) it does not apply per this wording.

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Doug Mayer <
doug.mayer(--nospam--at)> wrote:
Hmm, I worded that poorly.  Yes, the demand should be increased 25% per this section, but does it apply to the diaphragm shear values that you would then compare to the code allowable diaphragm shear? 
Doug Mayer, SE
Structural Engineer
7535 North Palm Ave., Suite 201
Fresno, CA 93711
(559) 437-0887 Ph.
(559) 438-7554 Fax
From: David Topete [mailto:d.topete73(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 10:46 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Horizontal Irregularities

It appears the demand must be increased 25%, while the "allowable" shear values remain unchanged.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Doug Mayer <
doug.mayer(--nospam--at)> wrote:
Section of the ASCE 7-05 states:
"For structures assigned to Seismic Design Categories D, E, or F and having a horizontal structural irregularity…the design forces determined from Section 12.8.1 shall be increased 25 percent for connections of diaphragms to vertical elements and to collectors…"
Does this requirement apply to diaphragm shear values taken from the code tables?  As I read it, it does not, but I would appreciate confirmation. 
Doug Mayer, SE

Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals! (