Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
RE: "X" Bracing
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: "X" Bracing
- From: "Yousefi, Ben" <Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)ci.sj.ca.us>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:34:02 -0700
I am pretty sure they are talking about the braces and not other members. The rationale for this, as far as I know, was that if all your braces, along a line of resistance, go into compression at once, when the load is reversed, due to probable buckling that may have occurred in the previous direction, the capacity may be substantially reduced. As for tension only rods, if some of them fail in tension, then in the next cycle there would be loss of capacity also. The crux of the matter is that, there is a lack of redundancy in a system that places all braces in tension or compression at once. Hence the 70% rule. And as Michael Cochran correctly indicated, for compression members there is an exception that allows their use in 100% compression if they meet the specified loading combination. The exception was a much needed addition in the 97 UBC. I remember that in 1990 I was reviewing a 40 story dual frame system that had all the braces in 2 lines of resistance in the same directions all the way through the height of the building. Since 1988 UBC had just been adopted the designer was not aware of this requirement and the steel had already been ordered in advance. So we compromised and suggested that if all the braces could resist 3/8 Rw (Omega in the new code) times the design loads we would accept the design. They ran the numbers and fortunately ended up needing to upgrade only a few of the braces. Ben Yousefi, SE San Jose, CA -----Original Message----- From: David B Merrick [SMTP:mrkgp(--nospam--at)pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 9:52 AM To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: Re: "X" Bracing Mr. Yousefi: Is not 2213.8.2.3 using the term "members" (not "bracing members") for those horizontal members collecting the load and delivering it to the bracing members? This would insure bracing members were not all at one end of a line of force. 2213.8.2.1 controls slenderness stability, ruling out cable 2213.8.2.2 uses the term "bracing members", that would be different from "members" David Merrick * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org
- Prev by Subject: Re: "X" Bracing
- Next by Subject: (Delete -- Sorry! Wrong Button!) RE: looking for a structural en gineer/drafter moonlighter
- Previous by thread: Re: "X" Bracing
- Next by thread: Discontinuous shear wall load path
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]