Saturday, October 3, 2009

Re: 5 psf lateral partition live load - was RE: 16 gage wire strength

Harold,
NBCC is not as ambiguous as Gary's response suggests.

The mandatory, universal, non-specific 10 psf partition wall load has been
removed.

NBCC does require a 0.5 kPa (10 +/- psf) Live Load on walls under specific
circumstances (e.g. guard walls, firewalls).

Additionally, as Gary describes, walls should be capable of resisting the
air pressure loads itemized and there are means to determine those loads.

There area some vague words but in writing the code we avoid being too
explicit since we cannot consider every potential condition for some issues
(not news to you , I'm sure). IF the engineer did not reasonably consider
the potential conditions, that would be unacceptable in professional
practice but not necessarily unsafe.

Regardless of the pressures assigned, I have some difficulty with the idea
of supporting a partition using horizontal 12 ga wire in place of something
more substantial, like fastening to the u/s of a drop/Tbar ceiling (tongue
in cheek).

Regards
Paul


> From: Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com>

> I am not well acquainted with the NBCC. We were forced to purge "due consi=
> deration" from ASCE 7 some years ago. Some thought that it might be ambigu=
> ous=3B>) =20

> It is still ambiguous=2C but not as ambiguous as NBCC. This provision esta=
> blishes the minimum horizontal "live load" on interior partitions in the IB=
> C. The IBC has never explicitly defined the nature of this load=2C but it =
> is in the "Live Load" section as opposed to wind or seismic. One would ded=
> uce that this is a service live load and should have the appropriate 1.6 fa=
> ctor for limit state design. This would be an additive load to the E or W =
> load which has weird implications depending on if you are in limit state or=
> allowable stress. =20
>
> =20
>
> My understanding is that the ASCE is looking into this and scratching their=
> heads. It has been there a long time. Some designers are aware and some =
> are not. =20
>
>
> Regards=2C Harold Sprague


> From: "Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc." <design@hodgsoneng.ca>

> Harold,
> In response to your question, our NBCC requires that "due consideration" be
> given to wind pressures acting on interior partitions and walls due to
> differential pressures (windward and leeward sides), stack effect due to
> temperature, and pressurization due to mechanical equipment.  I hope I
> understood your question correctly.
> Gary


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: 5 psf lateral partition live load - was RE: 16 gage wire strength

I agree it is ambiguous.  I always end up playing it safe.
Gary

Harold Sprague wrote:
Gary,
I am not well acquainted with the NBCC.  We were forced to purge "due consideration" from ASCE 7 some years ago.  Some thought that it might be ambiguous;>) 
 
I was being a bit rhetorical, and I was referencing an IBC provision:
 

1607.13 Interior walls and partitions. Interior walls and partitions that exceed 6 feet (1829 mm) in height, including their finish materials, shall have adequate strength to resist the loads to which they are subjected but not less than a horizontal load of 5 psf (0.240 kN/m2).

 
It is still ambiguous, but not as ambiguous as NBCC.  This provision establishes the minimum horizontal "live load" on interior partitions in the IBC.  The IBC has never explicitly defined the nature of this load, but it is in the "Live Load" section as opposed to wind or seismic.  One would deduce that this is a service live load and should have the appropriate 1.6 factor for limit state design.  This would be an additive load to the E or W load which has weird implications depending on if you are in limit state or allowable stress. 
 
My understanding is that the ASCE is looking into this and scratching their heads.  It has been there a long time.  Some designers are aware and some are not. 

Regards, Harold Sprague


 

Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 07:51:01 -0400
From: design@hodgsoneng.ca
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: 16 gage wire strength

Harold,
In response to your question, our NBCC requires that "due consideration" be given to wind pressures acting on interior partitions and walls due to
differential pressures(windward and leeward sides), stack effect due to temperature, and pressurization due to mechanical equipment.  I hope I understood your question correctly.
Gary

Harold Sprague wrote:
First how can you have an interior wall UNDER 5 psf lateral load. 
 
Regards, Harold Sprague


 

Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:38:39 -0800
From: dmorris@bbfm.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: 16 gage wire strength

For the typical wire tension bracing used for suspended ceilings and lights, what is the steel type that can be assumed for the wire?  This is the typical stuff they use for bracing suspended ceilings, lights, etc.  The contractor has asked to use solid 16 gage wire instead of light gage steel studs for the lateral bracing of the top of interior partition walls under 5 psf lateral loading.



Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how.

Friday, October 2, 2009

RE: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

I was in Ft. Greely last March.  It got down to -30F.  That was not bad.  When it was -10F we had 45 mph winds.  ...no fun. 

Regards, Harold Sprague


 

From: sgordin@sgeconsulting.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 18:01:58 -0700

Adak sounds really exciting - especially when 20 years younger. 
I looked it up - the minimum (since 1949) temperature in Adak was +23F vs. -36F in Prudhoe Bay.  
 
Have a good weekend,
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 16:47
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

I did some work in Adak, Alaska about 20 years ago. As far as I know, all the anchors are still holding!
 
Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 4:34:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sgordin@sgeconsulting.com writes:
In northern Alaska, possibly; not in San Fernando Valley this month :).
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 14:54
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Steve:
 
Yes. I can't get the steel to fail (ductile).
 
Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 2:09:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sgordin@sgeconsulting.com writes:
Farzin,
 
You meant concrete failure, right?
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 10:51
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Howard:
 
The failure is always brittle. Can't get around that!

Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 10:39:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, coengineer@aim.com writes:
I believe that you do have to use the 0.75 redcution factor as well.  Can you use a smaller diameter anchor, deeper embedment, or a lower grade steel to ensure ductility?
 
Howard Silverman, PE
Anchoring Systems & Field Engineer Manager
USP Structural Connectors/Covert Operations
www.USPconnectors.com


-----Original Message-----
From: FSRahbar@aol.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 10:14 am
Subject: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

List:
 
CBC 2007, Section 1908.1.16, Modification to D.3.3.3, requires use of a reduction factor of 0.75 factor in calculating the Design Strength of Anchors. Modification to Section D.3.3.5, requires a ductile connection or" the minimum design strength of the anchors shall be at least 2.5 times the factored forces transmitted by the attachment".
 
Question: When we multiply the factored forces by 2.5, do we still have to use the 0.75 reduction factor in calculating the design strength?
 
Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041


Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.

Beer!! RE: Blast Doors : Door Edge Rotation and Yield Lines

Boulevard Brewery just launched a new one.
Boulevard Pilsner.  I highly recommend it. 
 
So many beers.   So little time. 

Regards, Harold Sprague


 

Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 09:42:07 -0700
Subject: Re: Blast Doors : Door Edge Rotation and Yield Lines
From: d.topete73@gmail.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

start the weekend off right...

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:
I think he owes you a Keg after that response Harold.

-gm


On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kapil,
The question is simple, but the answer is exceedingly complicated and results from years of study and field validation.  Blast resistant design is dynamic design on steroids. 
 
First, as I indicated in my September 25th response, you need to be using the UFC 3-340-02 which replaced the TM 5-1300 last year.  Following is the link to the UFC 3-340-02:
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_340_02.pdf
 
The UFC 3-340-02 is a 1,943 page document that contains a step by step example of a double leaf door.  Please reference my September 25 response for the exact reference to the appropriate section of the UFC 3-340-02 for the double leaf door. 
 
The UFC 3-340-02 provides straight forward solutions predicated on the work of engineers who have studied and tested blast resistant structures for decades.  If it is not covered in the UFC 3-340-02, you will need to go back to the fundamentals presented in Biggs, develop your hydrocode computer modeling program, design the door, construct the door, set the door in a reaction structure, detonate a device to create the design air blast, capture the overpressure and response data, and validate your design.  Count on about 5 years and about 25 million dollars in R&D after you clear the security issues. 
 
To your specific question.  The stiffened double leaf door does not reference yield line.  If you are looking at a solid plate element, reference UFC 3-340-02, page 5-29 for a discussion on yield line assumptions. 
 
There are specialty door companies that provide this service. 
 
It is a complicated field of study. 

Regards, Harold Sprague


 
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 09:44:45 -0400
> Subject: Blast Doors : Door Edge Rotation and Yield Lines
> From: kapil.nandwana@gmail.com
> To: seaint@seaint.org

>
> Hi :
>
> I am designing a blast door using TM5-1300 manual. It's is  double
> leaf blast door, and can be supported on two or three sides.
>
> My question is : How should I calculate the door edge rotation angle
> for a two side support and three side support ?
>
> In addition to edge rotation, I am also in doubt for how to select the
> yield lines for 2 sides supported and three side supported door ?
>
> How do I determine which option to choose while starting the analysis.
> How would I know later that I chose a wrong yield lines ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Kapil , Structural Engineer, EWI


Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bing™ now




--
David Topete, SE


Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.

Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Adak sounds really exciting - especially when 20 years younger. 
I looked it up - the minimum (since 1949) temperature in Adak was +23F vs. -36F in Prudhoe Bay.  
 
Have a good weekend,
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 16:47
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

I did some work in Adak, Alaska about 20 years ago. As far as I know, all the anchors are still holding!
 
Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 4:34:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sgordin@sgeconsulting.com writes:
In northern Alaska, possibly; not in San Fernando Valley this month :).
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 14:54
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Steve:
 
Yes. I can't get the steel to fail (ductile).
 
Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 2:09:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sgordin@sgeconsulting.com writes:
Farzin,
 
You meant concrete failure, right?
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 10:51
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Howard:
 
The failure is always brittle. Can't get around that!

Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 10:39:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, coengineer@aim.com writes:
I believe that you do have to use the 0.75 redcution factor as well.  Can you use a smaller diameter anchor, deeper embedment, or a lower grade steel to ensure ductility?
 
Howard Silverman, PE
Anchoring Systems & Field Engineer Manager
USP Structural Connectors/Covert Operations
www.USPconnectors.com


-----Original Message-----
From: FSRahbar@aol.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 10:14 am
Subject: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

List:
 
CBC 2007, Section 1908.1.16, Modification to D.3.3.3, requires use of a reduction factor of 0.75 factor in calculating the Design Strength of Anchors. Modification to Section D.3.3.5, requires a ductile connection or" the minimum design strength of the anchors shall be at least 2.5 times the factored forces transmitted by the attachment".
 
Question: When we multiply the factored forces by 2.5, do we still have to use the 0.75 reduction factor in calculating the design strength?
 
Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041

Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

As part of qualifying for taking the PE in Alaska, a course in arctic engineering or building in the north is required.  During one lecture, there was a photo of a piece of machinery that was loaded too quickly onto a lowboy in the winter at Prudhoe Bay.  The lowboy broke in half, there was no sign of any bending before fracture.  Now there are loading limits that take into account the temperature.

SGE Structural wrote:
In northern Alaska, possibly; not in San Fernando Valley this month :).
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 14:54
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Steve:
 
Yes. I can't get the steel to fail (ductile).
 
Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 2:09:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sgordin@sgeconsulting.com writes:
Farzin,
 
You meant concrete failure, right?
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 10:51
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Howard:
 
The failure is always brittle. Can't get around that!

Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 10:39:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, coengineer@aim.com writes:
I believe that you do have to use the 0.75 redcution factor as well.  Can you use a smaller diameter anchor, deeper embedment, or a lower grade steel to ensure ductility?
 
Howard Silverman, PE
Anchoring Systems & Field Engineer Manager
USP Structural Connectors/Covert Operations
www.USPconnectors.com


-----Original Message-----
From: FSRahbar@aol.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 10:14 am
Subject: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

List:
 
CBC 2007, Section 1908.1.16, Modification to D.3.3.3, requires use of a reduction factor of 0.75 factor in calculating the Design Strength of Anchors. Modification to Section D.3.3.5, requires a ductile connection or" the minimum design strength of the anchors shall be at least 2.5 times the factored forces transmitted by the attachment".
 
Question: When we multiply the factored forces by 2.5, do we still have to use the 0.75 reduction factor in calculating the design strength?
 
Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041

Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

I did some work in Adak, Alaska about 20 years ago. As far as I know, all the anchors are still holding!
 
Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 4:34:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sgordin@sgeconsulting.com writes:
In northern Alaska, possibly; not in San Fernando Valley this month :).
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 14:54
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Steve:
 
Yes. I can't get the steel to fail (ductile).
 
Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 2:09:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sgordin@sgeconsulting.com writes:
Farzin,
 
You meant concrete failure, right?
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 10:51
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Howard:
 
The failure is always brittle. Can't get around that!

Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 10:39:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, coengineer@aim.com writes:
I believe that you do have to use the 0.75 redcution factor as well.  Can you use a smaller diameter anchor, deeper embedment, or a lower grade steel to ensure ductility?
 
Howard Silverman, PE
Anchoring Systems & Field Engineer Manager
USP Structural Connectors/Covert Operations
www.USPconnectors.com


-----Original Message-----
From: FSRahbar@aol.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 10:14 am
Subject: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

List:
 
CBC 2007, Section 1908.1.16, Modification to D.3.3.3, requires use of a reduction factor of 0.75 factor in calculating the Design Strength of Anchors. Modification to Section D.3.3.5, requires a ductile connection or" the minimum design strength of the anchors shall be at least 2.5 times the factored forces transmitted by the attachment".
 
Question: When we multiply the factored forces by 2.5, do we still have to use the 0.75 reduction factor in calculating the design strength?
 
Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041

Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

In northern Alaska, possibly; not in San Fernando Valley this month :).
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 14:54
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Steve:
 
Yes. I can't get the steel to fail (ductile).
 
Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 2:09:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sgordin@sgeconsulting.com writes:
Farzin,
 
You meant concrete failure, right?
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 10:51
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Howard:
 
The failure is always brittle. Can't get around that!

Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 10:39:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, coengineer@aim.com writes:
I believe that you do have to use the 0.75 redcution factor as well.  Can you use a smaller diameter anchor, deeper embedment, or a lower grade steel to ensure ductility?
 
Howard Silverman, PE
Anchoring Systems & Field Engineer Manager
USP Structural Connectors/Covert Operations
www.USPconnectors.com


-----Original Message-----
From: FSRahbar@aol.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 10:14 am
Subject: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

List:
 
CBC 2007, Section 1908.1.16, Modification to D.3.3.3, requires use of a reduction factor of 0.75 factor in calculating the Design Strength of Anchors. Modification to Section D.3.3.5, requires a ductile connection or" the minimum design strength of the anchors shall be at least 2.5 times the factored forces transmitted by the attachment".
 
Question: When we multiply the factored forces by 2.5, do we still have to use the 0.75 reduction factor in calculating the design strength?
 
Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041

Re: 16 gage wire strength

The wire to be used will be 12 gage.  The 16 gage was an error on my part, it was to be 12 gage.

David Topete wrote:
Typically, this is 12 ga. wire, galvanized soft anneraled mild steel wire, conforming to ASTM A 641.  Well, at least according to State of CA OSPHD... 

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Drew Morris <dmorris@bbfm.com> wrote:
For the typical wire tension bracing used for suspended ceilings and lights, what is the steel type that can be assumed for the wire?  This is the typical stuff they use for bracing suspended ceilings, lights, etc.  The contractor has asked to use solid 16 gage wire instead of light gage steel studs for the lateral bracing of the top of interior partition walls under 5 psf lateral loading.



--
David Topete, SE

Re: 16 gage wire strength

Typically, this is 12 ga. wire, galvanized soft anneraled mild steel wire, conforming to ASTM A 641.  Well, at least according to State of CA OSPHD... 

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Drew Morris <dmorris@bbfm.com> wrote:
For the typical wire tension bracing used for suspended ceilings and lights, what is the steel type that can be assumed for the wire?  This is the typical stuff they use for bracing suspended ceilings, lights, etc.  The contractor has asked to use solid 16 gage wire instead of light gage steel studs for the lateral bracing of the top of interior partition walls under 5 psf lateral loading.



--
David Topete, SE

Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Steve:
 
Yes. I can't get the steel to fail (ductile).
 
Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 2:09:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sgordin@sgeconsulting.com writes:
Farzin,
 
You meant concrete failure, right?
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 10:51
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Howard:
 
The failure is always brittle. Can't get around that!

Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 10:39:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, coengineer@aim.com writes:
I believe that you do have to use the 0.75 redcution factor as well.  Can you use a smaller diameter anchor, deeper embedment, or a lower grade steel to ensure ductility?
 
Howard Silverman, PE
Anchoring Systems & Field Engineer Manager
USP Structural Connectors/Covert Operations
www.USPconnectors.com


-----Original Message-----
From: FSRahbar@aol.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 10:14 am
Subject: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

List:
 
CBC 2007, Section 1908.1.16, Modification to D.3.3.3, requires use of a reduction factor of 0.75 factor in calculating the Design Strength of Anchors. Modification to Section D.3.3.5, requires a ductile connection or" the minimum design strength of the anchors shall be at least 2.5 times the factored forces transmitted by the attachment".
 
Question: When we multiply the factored forces by 2.5, do we still have to use the 0.75 reduction factor in calculating the design strength?
 
Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041

Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Farzin,
 
You meant concrete failure, right?
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 10:51
Subject: Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Howard:
 
The failure is always brittle. Can't get around that!

Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 10:39:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, coengineer@aim.com writes:
I believe that you do have to use the 0.75 redcution factor as well.  Can you use a smaller diameter anchor, deeper embedment, or a lower grade steel to ensure ductility?
 
Howard Silverman, PE
Anchoring Systems & Field Engineer Manager
USP Structural Connectors/Covert Operations
www.USPconnectors.com


-----Original Message-----
From: FSRahbar@aol.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 10:14 am
Subject: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

List:
 
CBC 2007, Section 1908.1.16, Modification to D.3.3.3, requires use of a reduction factor of 0.75 factor in calculating the Design Strength of Anchors. Modification to Section D.3.3.5, requires a ductile connection or" the minimum design strength of the anchors shall be at least 2.5 times the factored forces transmitted by the attachment".
 
Question: When we multiply the factored forces by 2.5, do we still have to use the 0.75 reduction factor in calculating the design strength?
 
Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041

Re: Structural Engineering Online Encyclopedia

I think it is a good itead.
Looking on some pages I will think the content is not always what need to be, eg. Steel shapes shows beam bending.
Where this notes should be send?
 
John W. Sieszycki, P.E. Montreal

 


From: Jeremy White <admin@structuralae.com>
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, October 2, 2009 12:36:04 PM
Subject: Structural Engineering Online Encyclopedia


In 2007 a survey was posted on this list regarding the establishment of a structural engineering wiki. This survey resulted in 82% of the respondents approving of such a project.

I am currently working on a beta project for an online collaborative encyclopedia based on the wiki platform. I am putting the offer out there for people who are interested in contributing content to the encyclopedia to contact me.  Feel free to respond to this posting for public discussion of the project.

- Jeremy


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*  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******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: Structural Engineering Online Encyclopedia

I am speaking mostly of the content, but I could also use help with
some of the non-engineering related issues like programming. Because
the site is in a "beta" phase I set it up so you have to create an
account to both view and contribute content.

For those who are interested in contributing you can go to
StructuralPedia.com and sign up. The site is populated with some
content already, but it is essentially a blank slate.

There are several types of content that can be contributed, all of
which should not be copyright protected material. Some people could
contribute the body of the entry or simply upload images or pdf's to
supplement the entry. Other important contributions are links to
other resources and proper citation of content.

- Jeremy

Quoting Richard Calvert <RichardC@lbbe.com>:

> Isn't it the purpose of a wiki that anyone can contribute? Or are
> you speaking of the initial setup of the web site?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy White [mailto:admin@structuralae.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 12:36 PM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Structural Engineering Online Encyclopedia
>
>
> In 2007 a survey was posted on this list regarding the establishment
> of a structural engineering wiki. This survey resulted in 82% of the
> respondents approving of such a project.
>
> I am currently working on a beta project for an online collaborative
> encyclopedia based on the wiki platform. I am putting the offer out
> there for people who are interested in contributing content to the
> encyclopedia to contact me. Feel free to respond to this posting for
> public discussion of the project.
>
> - Jeremy
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

Howard:
 
The failure is always brittle. Can't get around that!

Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041
 
In a message dated 10/2/2009 10:39:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, coengineer@aim.com writes:
I believe that you do have to use the 0.75 redcution factor as well.  Can you use a smaller diameter anchor, deeper embedment, or a lower grade steel to ensure ductility?
 
Howard Silverman, PE
Anchoring Systems & Field Engineer Manager
USP Structural Connectors/Covert Operations
www.USPconnectors.com


-----Original Message-----
From: FSRahbar@aol.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 10:14 am
Subject: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

List:
 
CBC 2007, Section 1908.1.16, Modification to D.3.3.3, requires use of a reduction factor of 0.75 factor in calculating the Design Strength of Anchors. Modification to Section D.3.3.5, requires a ductile connection or" the minimum design strength of the anchors shall be at least 2.5 times the factored forces transmitted by the attachment".
 
Question: When we multiply the factored forces by 2.5, do we still have to use the 0.75 reduction factor in calculating the design strength?
 
Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041

RE: Structural Engineering Online Encyclopedia

Isn't it the purpose of a wiki that anyone can contribute? Or are you speaking of the initial setup of the web site?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy White [mailto:admin@structuralae.com]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 12:36 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Structural Engineering Online Encyclopedia


In 2007 a survey was posted on this list regarding the establishment
of a structural engineering wiki. This survey resulted in 82% of the
respondents approving of such a project.

I am currently working on a beta project for an online collaborative
encyclopedia based on the wiki platform. I am putting the offer out
there for people who are interested in contributing content to the
encyclopedia to contact me. Feel free to respond to this posting for
public discussion of the project.

- Jeremy


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

I believe that you do have to use the 0.75 redcution factor as well.  Can you use a smaller diameter anchor, deeper embedment, or a lower grade steel to ensure ductility?
 
Howard Silverman, PE
Anchoring Systems & Field Engineer Manager
USP Structural Connectors/Covert Operations
www.USPconnectors.com


-----Original Message-----
From: FSRahbar@aol.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, Oct 2, 2009 10:14 am
Subject: CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

List:
 
CBC 2007, Section 1908.1.16, Modification to D.3.3.3, requires use of a reduction factor of 0.75 factor in calculating the Design Strength of Anchors. Modification to Section D.3.3.5, requires a ductile connection or" the minimum design strength of the anchors shall be at least 2.5 times the factored forces transmitted by the attachment".
 
Question: When we multiply the factored forces by 2.5, do we still have to use the 0.75 reduction factor in calculating the design strength?
 
Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041

CBC 2007 Revisions to Appendix D

List:
 
CBC 2007, Section 1908.1.16, Modification to D.3.3.3, requires use of a reduction factor of 0.75 factor in calculating the Design Strength of Anchors. Modification to Section D.3.3.5, requires a ductile connection or" the minimum design strength of the anchors shall be at least 2.5 times the factored forces transmitted by the attachment".
 
Question: When we multiply the factored forces by 2.5, do we still have to use the 0.75 reduction factor in calculating the design strength?
 
Thank you,

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041

Re: Blast Doors : Door Edge Rotation and Yield Lines

amen.




Quoting David Topete :
start the weekend off right...

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:
I think he owes you a Keg after that response Harold.

-gm


On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kapil,
The question is simple, but the answer is exceedingly complicated and results from years of study and field validation.  Blast resistant design is dynamic design on steroids. 
 
First, as I indicated in my September 25th response, you need to be using the UFC 3-340-02 which replaced the TM 5-1300 last year.  Following is the link to the UFC 3-340-02:
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_340_02.pdf
 
The UFC 3-340-02 is a 1,943 page document that contains a step by step example of a double leaf door.  Please reference my September 25 response for the exact reference to the appropriate section of the UFC 3-340-02 for the double leaf door. 
 
The UFC 3-340-02 provides straight forward solutions predicated on the work of engineers who have studied and tested blast resistant structures for decades.  If it is not covered in the UFC 3-340-02, you will need to go back to the fundamentals presented in Biggs, develop your hydrocode computer modeling program, design the door, construct the door, set the door in a reaction structure, detonate a device to create the design air blast, capture the overpressure and response data, and validate your design.  Count on about 5 years and about 25 million dollars in R&D after you clear the security issues. 
 
To your specific question.  The stiffened double leaf door does not reference yield line.  If you are looking at a solid plate element, reference UFC 3-340-02, page 5-29 for a discussion on yield line assumptions. 
 
There are specialty door companies that provide this service. 
 
It is a complicated field of study. 

Regards, Harold Sprague


 
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 09:44:45 -0400
> Subject: Blast Doors : Door Edge Rotation and Yield Lines
> From: kapil.nandwana@gmail.com
> To: seaint@seaint.org

>
> Hi :
>
> I am designing a blast door using TM5-1300 manual. It's is  double
> leaf blast door, and can be supported on two or three sides.
>
> My question is : How should I calculate the door edge rotation angle
> for a two side support and three side support ?
>
> In addition to edge rotation, I am also in doubt for how to select the
> yield lines for 2 sides supported and three side supported door ?
>
> How do I determine which option to choose while starting the analysis.
> How would I know later that I chose a wrong yield lines ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Kapil , Structural Engineer, EWI

Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bing™ now




--
David Topete, SE

Re: Blast Doors : Door Edge Rotation and Yield Lines

start the weekend off right...

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:
I think he owes you a Keg after that response Harold.

-gm


On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kapil,
The question is simple, but the answer is exceedingly complicated and results from years of study and field validation.  Blast resistant design is dynamic design on steroids. 
 
First, as I indicated in my September 25th response, you need to be using the UFC 3-340-02 which replaced the TM 5-1300 last year.  Following is the link to the UFC 3-340-02:
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_340_02.pdf
 
The UFC 3-340-02 is a 1,943 page document that contains a step by step example of a double leaf door.  Please reference my September 25 response for the exact reference to the appropriate section of the UFC 3-340-02 for the double leaf door. 
 
The UFC 3-340-02 provides straight forward solutions predicated on the work of engineers who have studied and tested blast resistant structures for decades.  If it is not covered in the UFC 3-340-02, you will need to go back to the fundamentals presented in Biggs, develop your hydrocode computer modeling program, design the door, construct the door, set the door in a reaction structure, detonate a device to create the design air blast, capture the overpressure and response data, and validate your design.  Count on about 5 years and about 25 million dollars in R&D after you clear the security issues. 
 
To your specific question.  The stiffened double leaf door does not reference yield line.  If you are looking at a solid plate element, reference UFC 3-340-02, page 5-29 for a discussion on yield line assumptions. 
 
There are specialty door companies that provide this service. 
 
It is a complicated field of study. 

Regards, Harold Sprague


 
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 09:44:45 -0400
> Subject: Blast Doors : Door Edge Rotation and Yield Lines
> From: kapil.nandwana@gmail.com
> To: seaint@seaint.org

>
> Hi :
>
> I am designing a blast door using TM5-1300 manual. It's is  double
> leaf blast door, and can be supported on two or three sides.
>
> My question is : How should I calculate the door edge rotation angle
> for a two side support and three side support ?
>
> In addition to edge rotation, I am also in doubt for how to select the
> yield lines for 2 sides supported and three side supported door ?
>
> How do I determine which option to choose while starting the analysis.
> How would I know later that I chose a wrong yield lines ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Kapil , Structural Engineer, EWI


Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bing™ now




--
David Topete, SE

Structural Engineering Online Encyclopedia

In 2007 a survey was posted on this list regarding the establishment
of a structural engineering wiki. This survey resulted in 82% of the
respondents approving of such a project.

I am currently working on a beta project for an online collaborative
encyclopedia based on the wiki platform. I am putting the offer out
there for people who are interested in contributing content to the
encyclopedia to contact me. Feel free to respond to this posting for
public discussion of the project.

- Jeremy


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: Blast Doors : Door Edge Rotation and Yield Lines

I think he owes you a Keg after that response Harold.

-gm

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kapil,
The question is simple, but the answer is exceedingly complicated and results from years of study and field validation.  Blast resistant design is dynamic design on steroids. 
 
First, as I indicated in my September 25th response, you need to be using the UFC 3-340-02 which replaced the TM 5-1300 last year.  Following is the link to the UFC 3-340-02:
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_340_02.pdf
 
The UFC 3-340-02 is a 1,943 page document that contains a step by step example of a double leaf door.  Please reference my September 25 response for the exact reference to the appropriate section of the UFC 3-340-02 for the double leaf door. 
 
The UFC 3-340-02 provides straight forward solutions predicated on the work of engineers who have studied and tested blast resistant structures for decades.  If it is not covered in the UFC 3-340-02, you will need to go back to the fundamentals presented in Biggs, develop your hydrocode computer modeling program, design the door, construct the door, set the door in a reaction structure, detonate a device to create the design air blast, capture the overpressure and response data, and validate your design.  Count on about 5 years and about 25 million dollars in R&D after you clear the security issues. 
 
To your specific question.  The stiffened double leaf door does not reference yield line.  If you are looking at a solid plate element, reference UFC 3-340-02, page 5-29 for a discussion on yield line assumptions. 
 
There are specialty door companies that provide this service. 
 
It is a complicated field of study. 

Regards, Harold Sprague


 
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 09:44:45 -0400
> Subject: Blast Doors : Door Edge Rotation and Yield Lines
> From: kapil.nandwana@gmail.com
> To: seaint@seaint.org

>
> Hi :
>
> I am designing a blast door using TM5-1300 manual. It's is  double
> leaf blast door, and can be supported on two or three sides.
>
> My question is : How should I calculate the door edge rotation angle
> for a two side support and three side support ?
>
> In addition to edge rotation, I am also in doubt for how to select the
> yield lines for 2 sides supported and three side supported door ?
>
> How do I determine which option to choose while starting the analysis.
> How would I know later that I chose a wrong yield lines ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Kapil , Structural Engineer, EWI


Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bing™ now

RE: Blast Doors : Door Edge Rotation and Yield Lines

Kapil,
The question is simple, but the answer is exceedingly complicated and results from years of study and field validation.  Blast resistant design is dynamic design on steroids. 
 
First, as I indicated in my September 25th response, you need to be using the UFC 3-340-02 which replaced the TM 5-1300 last year.  Following is the link to the UFC 3-340-02:
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_340_02.pdf
 
The UFC 3-340-02 is a 1,943 page document that contains a step by step example of a double leaf door.  Please reference my September 25 response for the exact reference to the appropriate section of the UFC 3-340-02 for the double leaf door. 
 
The UFC 3-340-02 provides straight forward solutions predicated on the work of engineers who have studied and tested blast resistant structures for decades.  If it is not covered in the UFC 3-340-02, you will need to go back to the fundamentals presented in Biggs, develop your hydrocode computer modeling program, design the door, construct the door, set the door in a reaction structure, detonate a device to create the design air blast, capture the overpressure and response data, and validate your design.  Count on about 5 years and about 25 million dollars in R&D after you clear the security issues. 
 
To your specific question.  The stiffened double leaf door does not reference yield line.  If you are looking at a solid plate element, reference UFC 3-340-02, page 5-29 for a discussion on yield line assumptions. 
 
There are specialty door companies that provide this service. 
 
It is a complicated field of study. 

Regards, Harold Sprague


 
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 09:44:45 -0400
> Subject: Blast Doors : Door Edge Rotation and Yield Lines
> From: kapil.nandwana@gmail.com
> To: seaint@seaint.org
>
> Hi :
>
> I am designing a blast door using TM5-1300 manual. It's is  double
> leaf blast door, and can be supported on two or three sides.
>
> My question is : How should I calculate the door edge rotation angle
> for a two side support and three side support ?
>
> In addition to edge rotation, I am also in doubt for how to select the
> yield lines for 2 sides supported and three side supported door ?
>
> How do I determine which option to choose while starting the analysis.
> How would I know later that I chose a wrong yield lines ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Kapil , Structural Engineer, EWI


Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bing™ now

Re: 5 psf lateral partition live load - was RE: 16 gage wire strength

I have a copy of the 2000 IBC handbook Structural Provisions, and the IBC defined that 5psf horizontal partition load as "nominal impact loads that commonly occur in the use of a facility and to HVAC pressurization".

This seems to be what you are looking for.  I don't believe you would add this to your exterior walls and their wind pressure design because the internal pressure coefficients for wind design would incorporate the building's internal pressures.  This would strictly be for interior partitions.  The way I treat it is that it is another horizontal live load, and if there are two transitory live loads, simply follow the rules of the load combinations specified by the code.

1.0 D + 1.0 L1 + 0.75 L2 or 1.0D + 0.75L1 + 1.0L2, whichever controls...

Hope this helps...

Andy




Harold Sprague wrote:
Gary,
I am not well acquainted with the NBCC.  We were forced to purge "due consideration" from ASCE 7 some years ago.  Some thought that it might be ambiguous;>) 
 
I was being a bit rhetorical, and I was referencing an IBC provision:
 

1607.13 Interior walls and partitions. Interior walls and partitions that exceed 6 feet (1829 mm) in height, including their finish materials, shall have adequate strength to resist the loads to which they are subjected but not less than a horizontal load of 5 psf (0.240 kN/m2).

 
It is still ambiguous, but not as ambiguous as NBCC.  This provision establishes the minimum horizontal "live load" on interior partitions in the IBC.  The IBC has never explicitly defined the nature of this load, but it is in the "Live Load" section as opposed to wind or seismic.  One would deduce that this is a service live load and should have the appropriate 1.6 factor for limit state design.  This would be an additive load to the E or W load which has weird implications depending on if you are in limit state or allowable stress. 
 
My understanding is that the ASCE is looking into this and scratching their heads.  It has been there a long time.  Some designers are aware and some are not. 

Regards, Harold Sprague


 

Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 07:51:01 -0400
From: design@hodgsoneng.ca
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: 16 gage wire strength

Harold,
In response to your question, our NBCC requires that "due consideration" be given to wind pressures acting on interior partitions and walls due to
differential pressures(windward and leeward sides), stack effect due to temperature, and pressurization due to mechanical equipment.  I hope I understood your question correctly.
Gary

Harold Sprague wrote:
First how can you have an interior wall UNDER 5 psf lateral load. 
 
Regards, Harold Sprague


 

Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:38:39 -0800
From: dmorris@bbfm.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: 16 gage wire strength

For the typical wire tension bracing used for suspended ceilings and lights, what is the steel type that can be assumed for the wire?  This is the typical stuff they use for bracing suspended ceilings, lights, etc.  The contractor has asked to use solid 16 gage wire instead of light gage steel studs for the lateral bracing of the top of interior partition walls under 5 psf lateral loading.



Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how.

Re: SIPs panels in shear

I will kind of disagree with this. While I agree that there is a decided
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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********