lack of "documentation" on the use of SIP shearwalls in high seismic regions
(i.e. Publicly available test results of cyclic testing), I know that SIP
shearwalls can be detailed to achieve results that match fairly well to a
"matched" stick-framed shearwall as I have seen some of those
"non-publically" available test results that show it. Thus, I know the
theory is nominally on point (it certainly needs to be tweaked), but it does
still need to have publicly available testing that supports that before
engineers will likely "widely" accept them as viable options.
And I will certainly agree that SIPs overall are still in the
"developmental" stage from a code perspective due to the industry's stubborn
adherence to the whole "proprietary" information mantra. The various "big
boys" in the SIP industry are so concerned with maintaining their share of
the market that they cannot see how having a rational engineering method in
the code would allow for the SIP industry as a whole to grow due to being
easier for engineers to design and use, which would likely increase their
panel sales even if their market share might actually decrease a little.
Regards,
Scott
Adrian, MI
On 10/2/09 4:00 AM, "Mark Gilligan" <m_k_gilligan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> There are some real concerns regarding the use of classic SIPS in regions of
> high seismicity. In response to these concerns ICC-ES AC04 is being revised
> to address these concerns. These are not your classic SIPs. I am not
> convinced that they have gone far enough but it is definately an improvement.
>
> Part of the concern is how do you tie the seperate panels together so they act
> as a system This is not addressed by the acceptance criteria. I would
> consider the use of SIPs in high seismic reagions to be in a developmental
> mode.
>
> Mark Gilligan
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********