Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
RE: "R" Value
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: "R" Value
- From: "SEConsultant" <seconsultant(--nospam--at)earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:22:56 -0800
Since nothing is set in stone these days, my opinion is that the smallest R should be used that represents the most flexible system acting in each direction of applied loads. In a box system where only plywood shearwalls are used, an R of 5.5 is allowable. However, in some areas this will yield a base shear of around 14.7% which is not enough for some of us who designed in the previous code using an Rw of 6 rather than 8 to compensate for possible deficiencies in construction. Using R of 4.5 may be more conservative (in a plywood box system) but should be left to the discretion of the engineer of record. The problem, in my opinion, is that the current code tries to make these determinations for us rather than letting us decide when it is appropriate to add strength. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: FSRahbar(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:FSRahbar(--nospam--at)aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 2:57 PM To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: "R" Value The big "R". Where a building has bearing wall system in both direction, can different "R" values be used for different directions. For example R=4.5 for N-S direction and R=5.5 for E-W direction. The building is rectangular in shape. Thank you, F S Rahbar
- References:
- "R" Value
- From: FSRahbar
- "R" Value
- Prev by Subject: Re: "R" Value
- Next by Subject: #2 pencil
- Previous by thread: "R" Value
- Next by thread: Re: "R" Value
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]