Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: dynamic lateral force procedure

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
well said
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sherman, William" <ShermanWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: December 10, 2001 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: dynamic lateral force procedure


> I generally use the equivalent lateral force method unless otherwise
> dictated by the code or client or where a structure is considered to be
> complex and of a critical nature. In my opinion, a dynamic analysis
provides
> a more accurate vertical distribution of lateral forces but may not be
> warranted except for complex structures or unusual load distributions.
> Generally a dynamic analysis does not modify the total base shear
> significantly, since the final base shear must be scaled up or may be
scaled
> down to near the value obtained by the equivalent lateral force method.
>
> I also use a site-specific response spectrum where available, typically
for
> structures which are considered more critical in nature. Although the code
> allows scaling the base shear down to the base shear determined by the
> equivalent lateral force method, I don't typically scale it down since the
> intent for critical structures is to have better performance after a
defined
> seismic event.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Adie [mailto:dadie(--nospam--at)bjginc.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 11:01 AM
> > To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> > Subject: dynamic lateral force procedure
> >
> >
> > this survey / question is for those individuals who typically
> > have a choice
> > between designing their structures (buildings) with the
> > dynamic procedure
> > and with the static procedure, and then choose to use the
> > dynamic procedure.
> > (ubc specific?)
> >
> > what subtle (or hidden) advantages are there?  do those
> > advantages outweigh
> > the PERCEIVED increase in calculations / complexity?
> >
> > tia
> > da (static procedure guy, so far)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   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(--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
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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(--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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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(--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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********