Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: ASCE7-05 240 ft ordinary braced frames in seismic design category D?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I attended a DSA seminar prior to the rollout of the new code and I
remember them saying that ordinary steel braced frames were essentially
going to the dump.  The height limitation per ASCE 7-05 seems to confirm
that statement and none of the errata that I have seen changes that
value.  Sucks.

Doug Mayer, SE
Structural Engineer


-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan(--nospam--at)usace.army.mil] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 5:28 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: ASCE7-05 240 ft ordinary braced frames in seismic design
category D?

Gerard:

They had the same note in the ASCE7-02 and IBC 2000 that allowed single
story
ordinary braced frames to be 60 feet with the 20 psf roof, but there was
an
exception for "braced frames" to be 240 when not more than 60% of the
story
shear was on a grid and not more than 20% of the force in a brace was
from
torsion.

Ordinary braced frames by ASCE7-02, IBC 2000, and IBC 2003 could be 240
feet
tall in seismic design category D if there was not a torsional
irregularity
and if your grids had an even distribution of the story shear.  It
appears
maybe they don't want to allow two story ordinary braced frames in
seismic
design category D to be taller than 35 feet in the ASCE7-05 anymore, but
you
can't tell exactly because of the poorly written wording - maybe there
is an
errata since the printing I have.

I am wondering if there is a typo in the ASCE7-05 and whether the code
committee really wants to hose people into using special concentrically
braced frames for a shoe box - two or three story building that is a bit
taller than 35 feet. I think 35 feet is too short for an ordinary braced
frame building with a bunch of braced grids for a two, three or four
story
building.  

Scott. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmse4603(--nospam--at)gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:02 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: ASCE7-05 240 ft ordinary braced frames in seismic design
category D?

Footnote J of Table 12.2-1 states you can increase the height to 60 feet
for
1 story buildings with roof DL 20 psf or less for OCBF's

I think this provision superseeds footnote D in the same table

hth,
-gm


On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Haan, Scott M POA
<Scott.M.Haan(--nospam--at)usace.army.mil> wrote:


	It used to be in ASCE7-02 that ordinary braced frames were
limited to
35 feet
	with an exception that they could be as high as 240 feet as long
as
any
	braced frame grid did not carry more than 60% of the seismic
forces
in that
	direction and that not more the 20% of the force in a braced
frame
was from
	torsion.
	
	ASCE7-05 section 12.2.5.4's wording seems to muddy the waters
for me.
It
	says height limits in Table 12.2-1 are permitted to be increased
from
160
	feet to 240 ft in seismic design category D?
	
	Does this mean I can can have an ordinary braced frame in
seismic
design
	category D with a 35 ft height limitation increased to between
160
feet and
	240 feet per ASCE 7-05?
	
	Special braced frames and eccentrically braced frames have a
height
limit of
	160 feet in seismic design category D.  It seems like the intent
of
ASCE 7-05
	is only to allow special braced frames and eccentrically braced
frames to use
	the height limit exception because of the wording "increased
from 160
feet to
	240 feet."
	
	Thanks.
	Scott
	
	******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
	*   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
	******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
	




--
-gm 

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 
Visit our new website at www.taylorteter.com

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********