] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

["Mike Valley" <mtv(--nospam--at)skilling.com>]

Bill:

Your argument is compelling.  I believe that the unanimous agreement
among those who wrote the original 10/lw is as you have described it
(a counting tool for walls longer than 10' and not a penalty factor
for shorter walls).  However, some people have latched onto the
penalty and say, "although not intended by the original authors,
discouraging short concrete or masonry walls is a good idea."

I believe that there are some warts on the redundancy factor even as
written by the original authors.  Adding another level of unimplied
intent seems foolish to me.

-Mike

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael Valley, P.E., S.E.                   E-mail: mtv(--nospam--at)skilling.com
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc.              Tel:(206)292-1200
1301 Fifth Ave, #3200,  Seattle  WA 98101-2699      Fax:        -1201

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen, S.E. [mailto:Bill(--nospam--at)jrma.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 4:42 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Redundancy factor 1.0 for single story wood framed?


4/lw? Where did THAT come from? Where have I been?

According to Dick Phillips, alledgedly the author of "10/lw", it was
NEVER
intended to be a penalty for short shear walls, but an "aid" to long
shear
walls. Doesn't anyone care WHY things are in the Code anymore? The
intent of
"10/lw" was to remove the penalty on those long shear walls by
considering
them to be a collection of shear walls with a length of 10 ft each.

Based on this, the concept that "10/lw" is NOT a penalty for short
shear
walls should apply to more structures than merely one story wood
framed
buildings. IMO, the code should read, wherever referencing "10/lw" to
"10/lw>1".

Even though the IBC 2000 is not being adopted, don't plan check
officials
have a copy on their shelves and/or don't they follow comments on this
list
and position statements presented by SEAOC? Anyone going to ask why
this
feature was adopted into the IBC 2000?

If not, maybe SEAOC can prepare a position paper like they have done
on a
couple of other issues. These have been very helpful considering there
are
no off year corrections to the 1997 UBC.

Regards,

Bill Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)



-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn [mailto:lhoward(--nospam--at)silcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 3:17 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Redundancy factor 1.0 for single story wood framed?


Paul-
Thanks, but I think Ben answered my question for me.
It was that the 10/lw was changed to 4/lw for wood
frame

Paul Feather wrote:
>
> Lynn,
> The only proposal I am aware of is that 10/lw should not exceed 1.0
for
wood
> shear walls, I can look up the paper later if you would like.
>
> I am not aware of any limitation on Rho
>
> Paul Feather
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lynn" <lhoward(--nospam--at)silcom.com>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:55 AM
> Subject: Redundancy factor 1.0 for single story wood framed?
>
> > I thought I had read on this list that there was an
> > official proposal or some kind of document put out by
> > SEAOC that was recommending a change in the code to
> > allow the use of Rho to be 1.0 for one story wood
> > framed structures (or was it just residential
> > structures?).
> >
> > I have reviewed the archives of the "list", and have
> > found there has been a lot of discussion on the matter,
> > but I could not find the document I was looking for.
> >
> > Is there any kind of a document circulating that is
> > proposing that Rho can be 1.0 for all one and two story
> > light wood framed structures?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Lynn
> >
> >
>