Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Seismic design of flatplates[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: Seismic design of flatplates
- From: Einar Einarsson <einar(--nospam--at)istak.is>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:44:42 -0000
Thank you Eric and Jason for your help ! I like to thank Jason for the papers he faxed to me on this subject. I have checked my flatplates against the criterium in those papers and the result is that I don't have to use shear reinforcement for 0.5% interstory drift. Eric you are right. The expected 500 year return effective peak ground acceleration is 0.15g ( unreduced ) for my structure, so 1994 UBC zone 2A migth be appropriate. I have not calculated the deflections of my structure with the methode you propose, but it seems good to me. Tank you. I have used my calculations with elastic deformations and multiplied it whith appropriate factor. I like to correct what I said earlier in e-mail. Megally and Ghali use flatplate structure with shearwalls to resist earthquake in the article they wrote on this subject. The Structure is in UBC zone 4 and they use 1.5% interstory drift criterium. Einar Einarsson, CE. -----Original Message----- From: T. Eric Gillham PE [mailto:teric(--nospam--at)gk2guam.com] Sent: 19. desember 2000 21:52 To: seaoc list Subject: FW: Seismic design of flatplates Einar: In your original post, you stated that the expected 500 year return effective peak ground acceleration is .15g for your structure. Unless you are talking about the REDUCED or DESIGN (Rw or equivalent reduction factor >1) effective peak ground acceleration being .15g, this sounds pretty low. If indeed it is this low, then the structure is probably in the equivalent of Zone 2A or less wrt the 1994 UBC (as a reference only). In this case, 1.5% of interstory drift would be too high. If, on the other hand, you are using .15g as a DESIGN (Rw=6 lets say) acceleration, then 1.5% of interstory drift is not that far off. Remember that the design of flat connections is done with the assumption that minimal ductility is present, therefore you need to be designing for maximum expected deformations, which will be significantly higher than those which you will get from an elastic analysis based on uncracked sections and a reduced DESIGN base shear. In any case, you can make an educated guess about the expected interstory drift by converting your acceleration spectra into a deformation spectra (for the 1994 UBC, a=ZICg, d=(w^2)*a where w=frequency, a=pseudo acceleration, d=displacement). Use a reasonable estimate of the cracked period of your structure to obtain an expected displacement at the height of the resultant for your structure (2/3 of H would be reasonable IMO, assuming predominant first mode response for a shear wall structure, ASSUMING your shearwalls extend to the foundation without a soft or weak first story). Once you have an estimate of the expected displacement, distribute this over the height of the structure (weighting it accordingly for hinge formation) to get your expected max interstory drift. This should let you know how close 1.5% is. Hope this helps. T. Eric R. Gillham PE PO Box 3207 Agana Guam 96932 Ph: (671) 477-9224 Fax: (671) 477-3456 Pgr: 720-8891 eric(--nospam--at)gk2guam.com <mailto:eric(--nospam--at)gk2guam.com> -----Original Message----- From: Einar Einarsson [mailto:einar(--nospam--at)istak.is] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 3:18 AM To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org' Subject: RE: Seismic design of flatplates I was hooping to hear what is a common practice in situatons like I have with shearwalls to take the horisontal earthquake force and laterial interstory drift ratio of 0.15%. I am aware of recent articles in ACI Structural Journals on this subject by Megally and Ghali. They state that a slab-colmn connection must prossess the ability to undergo a specified minimum laterial interstory drift ratio of 1.5%, which is 10 times what I calculate in my situation. Vu must not exeed 0.4 C Vc, where C is strength-reduction factor. This limit on Vu may be difficult to satisfy without the use of drop panels or use of stud shear reinforcement according to M. and G.. I assume they must be talking about the use of flatplate on columns without shearwalls to resist earthquake force. Einar Einarsson, CE -----Original Message----- From: Eric Lehmkuhl [mailto:eric_lehmkuhl(--nospam--at)kpff.com] Sent: 15. desember 2000 23:56 To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: RE: Seismic design of flatplates I would recommend studrail reinforcement for both strength and ductility. There have been several articles on this in recent ACI Structural Journals. Eric Lehmkuhl, S.E. KPFF Consulting Engineers, San Diego (619) 521 8500 phone (619) 521 8591 fax eric_lehmkuhl(--nospam--at)kpff.com -----Original Message----- From: Einar Einarsson [mailto:einar(--nospam--at)istak.is] Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 6:39 AM To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org' Subject: Seismic design of flatplates Hello. I would like to hear from you. I am designing 7 story high concrete building. It has shearwalls to resist the wind and earthquake loads and flatplates on columns to resist vertical loads. My consern is about punching of the flatplates because of eccentric punching during earthquake. The expected effectiv ground peak acceleration is 0.15g at the building site with 500 years return. Do you have any recommendations. Should I reduce the nominal shear strenght of the concrete and provide shear stirrups ? Are there any recommendations from Europe i.e. ceb/fip. Einar Einarsson, CE.
- Prev by Subject: FW: Seismic design of flatplates
- Next by Subject: Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings
- Previous by thread: FW: Seismic design of flatplates
- Next by thread: [no subject]