mijowe
Structural
- Feb 3, 2003
- 204
I am looking at UFC 4-023-03 Indirect Tie Force Procedure, and would like some feeback from the masses out there. My problem with the standard is that they have simplified the procedure so much that some of its limitations do not allow for reasonable features. For example:
3-1 Tie Forces "The load path....for internal ties must be continuous from one edge to the other." I have a three story lobby that cuts a portion of my building in half. A girder line is interrupted and does not runt edge to edge. The standard does not appear to give provisions to address this.
3-1 Tie Forces "Note that all tie force paths must be geometrically straight; changes in direction to accommodate openings or similar discontinuities are not allowed" Again most buildings i design have some type of irregular grid and openings that make satisfying this line difficult to resolve.
for a building with VLLOP the standard indicates that the "Tie Force" method be used but also stats that the "Alternate Path" method cannot be used. so even if i wanted to look at it a different way it appears by the letter of the standard that i can't.
Anybody with any experience with this standard?
3-1 Tie Forces "The load path....for internal ties must be continuous from one edge to the other." I have a three story lobby that cuts a portion of my building in half. A girder line is interrupted and does not runt edge to edge. The standard does not appear to give provisions to address this.
3-1 Tie Forces "Note that all tie force paths must be geometrically straight; changes in direction to accommodate openings or similar discontinuities are not allowed" Again most buildings i design have some type of irregular grid and openings that make satisfying this line difficult to resolve.
for a building with VLLOP the standard indicates that the "Tie Force" method be used but also stats that the "Alternate Path" method cannot be used. so even if i wanted to look at it a different way it appears by the letter of the standard that i can't.
Anybody with any experience with this standard?