Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
RE: 1997 AISC seismic - IBC seismic design category D - OBF brac e connections - column strength
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: 1997 AISC seismic - IBC seismic design category D - OBF brac e connections - column strength
- From: "Haan, Scott M." <HaanSM(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 06:55:09 -0800
I had a private question about why I think the special load combinations should consider orthogonal effects. For a multistory braced frame building the columns at the intersecting corners of an interior braced core can be critical. Also brace connections are critical. For the situation I was specifically refering to the columns were designed for special load combinations with orthogonal effects. The braces were designed for orthogonal effects with the regular load combinations. While doing the check I saw connections were not designed for Ry*Fy*Ag. I indicated the connections need to be designed for the lesser of Ry*Fy*Ag, special load combinations or the maximum force that can be delivered to the connection by the system. The response was that most of the connections work for OMEGAo*Qe if you do not consider orthogonal effects. The direction of load used to hit a corner column should be for the worst case direction. The ground could move both directions at the same time. The OMEGAo special load combinations are supposed to approximate the maximum load that can be delivered to the element by the system. It seems wrong to me then to not check the critical element for the maximum load that could be delivered to it. If the column buckles the building doesn't have a lateral system anymore. The code now requires orthogonal effects to be considered for active seismic areas. It seems wrong to me to design critical connections or elements considering loading along each perpendicular axis independently especially if there is a rigid diaphragm and torsion effects are significant. Scott M Haan P.E. Plan Review Engineer Building Safety Division http://www.muni.org/building Development Services Department Municipality of Anchorage phone:907-343-8183 fax:907-249-7399 mailto:haansm(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us -----Original Message----- From: Haan, Scott M. [mailto:HaanSM(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 2:28 PM To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org' Subject: RE: 1997 AISC seismic - IBC seismic design category D - OBF brac e connections - column strength -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your following message has been delivered to the list seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org at 15:41:17 on 1 May 2001. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks David. Orthogonal effects are definitely significant for the specific case I am thinking about. Braces and columns were designed considering orthogonal effects with special load combinations but connections were not. I agree and think the IBC intends orthogonal effects to be considered with special load combinations. The problem is the IBC does not specifically amend the steel code which it specifically adopts. The special load combinations in the AISC Seismic Provisions do not require orthogonal effects to be considered and this leaves room to debate. It is also interesting to note that the IBC special load combinations do not jive with the 1997 AISC Seismic Provision special load combinations. The IBC special load combinations include a .2*Sds*I*D vertical component while the AISC provisions are based on an older code and do not include this effect. The only thing I have got a code person or standard person to say is: yes they don't jive, it seems like the IBC requirements should be used but it is not written that way. It is kind of hard to require anything with an interpretation like that because the local engineers are kind of smart and read the code. P.S. By my reading of ACI 530-99 and the IBC 2000 it is ok to construct a masonry shearwall with non-loadbearing glass block with type O mortar or plastic cement mortar in Southern California. Scott M Haan P.E. Plan Review Engineer Building Safety Division http://www.muni.org/building Development Services Department Municipality of Anchorage phone:907-343-8183 fax:907-249-7399 mailto:haansm(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us -----Original Message----- From: David B Merrick [mailto:mrkgp(--nospam--at)pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 1:48 PM To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: Re: 1997 AISC seismic - IBC seismic design category D - OBF brace connections - column strength Haan, Scott M. The new code makes more sense to me. Yes orthogonal affects should be considered. The issue is the insignificance of some orthogonal affects. Orthogonal affects are the direct results of the base shear. Orthogonal affects are part of the equation used to distribute forces to walls. It is that part of the equation ignored when walls are all parallel or perpendicular to each other. The issue is the significance of the orthogonal affects. The extreme and most significant affect is a triangular plan. Resulting loads can change from 0 to 30%. ROTATION changes. SHIFTING PERPENDICULAR to the global force changes. Assumptions can be made to avoid the complexity of the orthogonal set of equations. There are wrong assumptions that do not envelop the more accurate, detailed results. Some assumptions maybe acceptable only when the orthogonal affects are insignificant. These assumptions are useful to design the orthogonal-wall details. Consider walls any type of directional shear resistance. When orthogonal affects are insignificant, one needs to only consider the detailing of the one small orthogonal wall. A simple vector analysis, for that wall, is adequate. The perpendicular-to-force-walls must be significantly (maybe ten times higher) stiffer than the orthogonal-wall. If not, the parallel-to-the force-walls will not share the load with the orthogonal-wall, resulting in higher loads. A good rule is to not reduce shear by sharing loads with the orthogonal-wall. Share the load only to determine a shear for the orthogonal-wall itself. For flexible diaphragms, mostly/only, the perpendicular-to-force-walls that are IN LINE with the orthogonal wall will offer stiffness for the above considerations. I have seen cases where there are none in line. A test of theoretical limits is to consider a case of no perpendicular-to-force-walls. The orthogonal-wall moves in the direction of least resistance, tilting enough so that the vector of building movement is perpendicular to the face of the orthogonal-wall. The building is deflected. Parallel-to-force-walls are loaded. The orthogonal-wall moved but is not loaded. What is insignificant? I use 5% as a guide. Does anyone know of a code rule as to what is an insignificant error? Back to the question at hand. Consider the question, in reference to the principle axis: Can I use an arbitrary direction for the global (building) force that is not inline with the principle axis when used with special load combinations including OMEGAo*Qe? Well yes, if has an insignificant affect on results. It should not be allowed, to choose a non-principle axis for the global (building) design force. It will reduce some local wall loads. The change may be insignificant and acceptable if the angle from global force to the principle axis is small. To simplify the considering of the orthogonal affects: The method must envelope the two extremes. FIRST extreme is to not let the building shift perpendicular to the force (that is a simple vector analysis of the orthogonal wall itself), The SECOND extreme is to consider no perpendicular-to-force-walls, by not sharing the load with the orthogonal wall (if the perpendicular-to-force-walls are not significantly stiffer than the orthogonal wall). David Merrick, SE Mrkgp(--nospam--at)pacbell.net "Haan, Scott M." wrote: > Hello : > > 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions Section 4.1 indicates orthogonal effects are > not required with special load combinations including OMEGAo*Qe. > > IBC 1620.3.5 always requires orthogonal effects to be considered for Seismic > Design Category D. IBC 1617.1.2 does not say that orthogonal effects are > not required when considering the special load combinations in the IBC. > 1997 UBC only required orthogonal effects for highly load columns at > intersecting lateral systems, non-parallel systems and torsional > irregularities and didn't say orthogonal effects did not need to be > considered with special load combinations for ASD steel design [it did for > LRFD]. > > It seems the intent of the IBC is to use the orthogonal effects with the > special load combinations in Seismic Design Category D. Is this an > oversight in the conversion to the IBC from the UBC, that the AISC > provisions were not amended? Should orthogonal effects be included in > special load combinations for columns, and brace connections in Seismic > Design Category D? For tension only braces? > > Thanks, > > Scott M Haan P.E. > Plan Review Engineer > Building Safety Division http://www.muni.org/building > Development Services Department > Municipality of Anchorage > phone:907-343-8183 fax:907-249-7399 > mailto:haansm(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us > > * > * 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(--nospam--at)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 * * 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(--nospam--at)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 * * 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(--nospam--at)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 * * 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(--nospam--at)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
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Subject: 1895 Final Exam
- Next by Subject: RE: 1997 AISC seismic - IBC seismic design category D - OBF brac e connections - column strength
- Previous by thread: RE: CA vs TX -- which shall it be?
- Next by thread: Re: 1997 AISC seismic - IBC seismic design category D - OBF brac econnections - column strength
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]