Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Free Standing Walls

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I think using an inverted pendulum model for a wall with a distributed mass 
 is a conservative assumption.

I recommend section 13.3 which would yield a value of .446 (ASD). Not much 
of a savings, but some.

Yes, 0.2 is too low, if you recall all the block fences that fell during 
the Northridge EQ.

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. (CA 2607)
A L L E N   D E S I G N S
Consulting Structural Engineers
33171 Paseo Cerveza, Suite 221
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

-----Original Message-----
From: seaint-seaosc(--nospam--at) [mailto:seaint-seaosc(--nospam--at)] On 
Behalf Of lrhauer(--nospam--at) Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 6:44 PM
To: seaint-seaosc(--nospam--at)
Subject: [SEAINT-SEAOSC] Free Standing Walls

I am designing some free standing concrete screen walls and it appears that 
 the conventional way to do so is using an R=2.0 per ASCE Table 15.4-2 for 
"Inverted Pendulum Type Structures". With an Sds of 1.56, this gives me an 
ASD sesimic force of about 0.56 x the wall weight. I guess I am still use 
to the old UBC where a ground supported wall in Seismic Zone 4 was 0.2 x 
the wall weight.

So, am I correct in using the 0.56 value, or is there somewherre else in 
the code that could reduce this??

Thanks in Advance,

Larry Hauer, S.E.

Post your message to the list by sending it to: 

The email messages sent to the list will be saved in an archive on the World Wide Web.
These archives are located at:

To contact the list owner, send your message to:

Sponsored By: Pacific Structural & Forensic Engineers Group, Inc. (PSFEG)

To unsubscribe, switch to/from digest, get on/off vacation, or change your email address, click here.