> Hello all,
>
> I've been finding a fairly consistent and frustrating discrepancy in
> seismic design category determination between SDS and SD1 and am
> wondering if perhaps the TARGET values shown in Table 1613.5.6(2) are
> incorrectly low. I find many of the regions here in the Central Valley
> (California) defined as SDC C by Table 1613.5.6(1) by a comfortable
> margin, but then wind up falling into SDC D by a larger margin when
> reviewing SD1. There are a number of detailing, inspection, and
> reporting provisions required for SDC D that are not required for SDC C
> and it seems out of whack for old "Seismic Zone 3" cities to now require
> the same triggers that San Francisco or Los Angeles require (old
> "Seismic Zone 4" cities). I am aware of Section 1613.5.6.1, but the
> requirements for the exception are fairly restrictive (40' between shear
> wall lines).
>
> Is anyone aware of discussions or research that has brought this up? Is
> this a more refined consideration of design values -- where do the
> TRIGGER values for determining SDC in these two table come from?
>
>
This is not unique to California. I have noticed a similar behavior
when looking at sites in southeast Alaska. Using the short period
response puts you in SDS C, but looking at the longer period you end up
in SDS D.
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* 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@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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********