Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Fw: Fw: UBC 97 Drift[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "seaoc list" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Fw: Fw: UBC 97 Drift
- From: "T. Eric Gillham PE" <gk2(--nospam--at)kuentos.guam.net>
- Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:45:56 +1000
I hear what you are saying about trying to design rationally for seismic loading while being in a sea of "engineers" who don't really understand seismic design.
But, I have to ask: what is it about your particular situation that is requiring you to increase the size of your walls such that it is becoming a problem? Are you concerned about pounding with adjacent structures, or are you concerned with structural stability at the expected deformation level?
In the design of structural walls for expected deformations during an actual design earthquake, I would imagine that you might be concerned with the strain levels in the compression zones of said walls, especially if you have rather high axial loads on them. But beyond that, unless you have a frame which is being restrained by very few walls, I have some difficulty imagining a system wherein deflections are actually becoming a problem.
Could you perhaps go into a little more detail regarding the particulars of your situation?
Also, again respecting the fact that I am not all that up on UBC97, it would seem that Section 1630.9.2 is requiring only Delta Max=.7*R*Delta Service, which would be .7*5.5 for a bearing wall system, which is then about 3.85. This seems pretty reasonable to me, in a conservative sense. If you really feel that this is too high, then perhaps you could do a moment curvature analysis to determine the equivalent elastic/inelastic stiffness of the walls, then do an analysis based on displacement (using a displacement spectra) which would in turn be based on a more reasonable cracked section period instead?
T. Eric Gillham PE
PO Box 3207 Agana, Guam 96932
Email - gk2(--nospam--at)kuentos.guam.net
Ph: (671) 477-9224
Fax: (671) 477-3456
-----Original Message-----"T. Eric Gillham PE" wrote:
From: Sleiman Serhal <mony(--nospam--at)destination.com.lb>
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Date: Saturday, March 27, 1999 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: UBC 97 Drift
I am not all that familiar with UBC97, and besides Eddie G has already provided what seems to be a reasonable response to the actual code reqts. My comment is general in nature: If you think about the basis for seismic design in general, I think it is apparent that cracked sections MUST be used when computing both structural properties for seismic analysis, as well as expected deformation levels. Remember that the expected accelerations during the actual design EQ are much much higher than those assumed for an elastic analsysis. This being the case, even if your walls don't crack under ELASTIC forces, they almost certainly will during the actual earthquake. The elastic analysis used by most designers doesn't really have much relation to the actual inelastic performance of the structure being designed during a real earthquake, primarily because one is elastic, the other inelastic.
Thanks again for your input,
- Prev by Subject: Re: Fw: UBC 97 Drift
- Next by Subject: Re: Fw: UBC 97 Drift
- Previous by thread: Re: Fw: UBC 97 Drift
- Next by thread: please take me off..