Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Tension Only "X Bracing

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The important question then becomes:
Who is responsible to catch the error if a manufacturer uses tension-only
bracing under inappropriate circumstances?

The design consultant who spec'd the building and the EOR, depending on who
is the responsible professional at the time that the drawings are delivered
by the manufacturer.

The building authority might catch it but it probably should not even be
submitted for permit with that error.


> From: Brian Bossley <bsbossley(--nospam--at)>

> There are some exemptions for single story lightweight roof systems in ASCE
> 7 that allow you to disregard the seismic detailing provisions of AISC 340,
> even in SDC D.

> From: David Topete <d.topete73(--nospam--at)>
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)
> I believe the exception applies to hangars or warehouse type structures.
> Single story, less than 35 feet tall, roof dead load < 20 psf...

>> On Jul 15, 2010 11:28 AM, "Jeff Hedman" <jeff_h(--nospam--at)> wrote:
>> If tension only braced frames are now prohibited, why do all the
>> pre-engineered metal buildings provide tension only rod bracing in the
>> longitudinal direction?  In my area we are typically in seismic design
>> category D.  Just curious how they would be getting around this.  I am not
>> at the office, so I haven=92t been able to look in the AISC 340-05 yet.

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