Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Pile/Fdn check check for ortho load comb in SDC D

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Deaer Harold, I share with you a fairly complex simple thought, about energy
and power of other dimensions, realizing through psycho-spiritual studies,
that our mind brain with capability may adapt further properties from
elements, compounds of elements and such.  Such that in a certain dimension
everything is alive and thriving, such that a grain of sand may have a
living component with thought and mind, and may then produce a sub-entity,
which is derived from the sand.  This conclusion stems similarly from
half-life considerations, and that everything in our living world and
space-time construct has a life, whether it is 100 billion years or a
second, everything has a construct of life.  Be it now, our minds to
reflect, on the grains of sand, and a diagram.  A being in essence, who
assembles a nuclear power plant, in himself has the generative power of the
entire plant in a half-life of thought energy which has also further energy
through the interactions with the plant itself.  Generally our day to day
life is not very restful with a being containing quantum physical
properties, and on the other hand, we also have beings who are apportioned
to us in every life.  Anyways, Harold is a very influential engineer, I
imagine soon enough there to be a concentration game, where everything we do
in every day life constructs the generating plant very successfully, in each
and every building and construction of human kind !  Perhaps our once
understood Atlantis thrived with these same minds...

--------- Original Message --------
From: seaint(--nospam--at)
To: seaint(--nospam--at) <seaint(--nospam--at)>
Subject: RE: Pile/Fdn check check for ortho load comb in SDC D
Date: 07/29/11 12:51

> This is another case of ...oops (more or less).&nbsp; 
> &nbsp;
> The intent can be found in the NEHRP Provisions and Commentary.&nbsp; The
Provisions essentially are the same in the ASCE 7.&nbsp; The&nbsp;Commentary
is included below for your reference.&nbsp;&nbsp;The ASCE 7 defines minimums
only.&nbsp; And sometimes we have problems getting the intent into the
> &nbsp;
> The intent is that orthogonal load characterization should be required
where we have higher seismic demand.&nbsp; Seismic ground motions do not
occur in just one horizontal direction.&nbsp; They occur in both horizontal
orthogonal directions and arrive at different times.&nbsp; In order to
account for the different arrival times, you should design for the ground
motion effects in 2 horizontal orthogonal directions.&nbsp; And the load
should be carried through to the foundations.&nbsp; The design of
foundations to resist the applied loads is implicit in the charging language
in Section 12.1.5.&nbsp; 
> &nbsp;
> The acceptable approach is to apply 100 percent in one direction (x)
simultaneously with 30 percent in the&nbsp;y direction.&nbsp; I say
acceptable, because the nuclear world uses the 100/40/40 rule.&nbsp; The
nuclear world requires a higher degree of conservatism and they require
consideration of vertical ground motion.&nbsp; 
> &nbsp;
> The ground shaking&nbsp;occurs in the vertical axis for buildings or
nuclear structures, but I am fighting that battle in the next code
cycle.&nbsp; The future code will require consideration for vertical ground
motion effects.&nbsp; ....stay tuned.&nbsp; We have known about the vertical
effects&nbsp;for years and design accordingly in the nuclear world.&nbsp;
But the non-nuclear world&nbsp;needs to be convinced before adding a layer
of complexity to design work.&nbsp; Regards, Harold Sprague
> &nbsp;
> NEHRP 03 Commentary
> 4.4.2 Application of loading. Earthquake forces act in both principal
directions of the building
> simultaneously, but the earthquake effects in the two principal directions
are unlikely to reach their
> maxima simultaneously. This section provides a reasonable and adequate
method for combining them. It
> requires that structural elements be designed for 100 percent of the
effects of seismic forces in one
> principal direction combined with 30 percent of the effects of seismic
forces in the orthogonal direction.
> The following combinations of effects of gravity loads, effects of seismic
forces in the x-direction, and
> effects of seismic forces in the y-direction (orthogonal to x-direction)
thus pertain:
> gravity " 100% of x-direction " 30% of y-direction
> gravity " 30% of x-direction " 100% of y-direction
> The combination and signs (plus or minus) requiring the greater member
strength are used for each
> member. Orthogonal effects are slight on beams, girders, slabs, and other
horizontal elements that are
> essentially one-directional in their behavior, but they may be significant
in columns or other vertical
> members that participate in resisting earthquake forces in both principal
directions of the building. For
> two-way slabs, orthogonal effects at slab-to-column connections can be
neglected provided the moment
> transferred in the minor direction does not exceed 30 percent of that
transferred in the orthogonal
> direction and there is adequate reinforcement within lines one and
one-half times the slab thickness either
> side of the column to transfer all the minor direction moment.
> &nbsp;
> Subject: FW: Pile/Fdn check check for ortho load comb in SDC DDate: Thu,
28 Jul 2011 14:14:24 -0500From: Ravi.Vasu@jacobs.comTo: seaint(--nospam--at)
> Harold, Thanks for your response.&nbsp; I have one more question on
section 12.5. Pl. refer to ASCE 7-05 section 12.5. 1.&nbsp; Per 12.5.2, we
do not need to take ortho load comb. for Category B structures. 2. Per
12.5.3 a(Category C), we need to consider ortho load comb. only for
Structural integrity type 5 structures. Pipe rack and other refinery
structures are straight forward &amp; do not fall in type 5 irregularity. 3.
Per 12.5.4(Category D,E &amp; F), we need to consider critical
loads(including ortho) only for columns or walls that forms part of two or
> Intersecting seismic force resisting systems &amp; subjected to axial load
&gt; 20% of strength&hellip;.. This section does not include fdn. &amp;
piles of regular structures like pipe rack. 
> ASCE does not address this issue of considering ortho load comb. for fdn.
&amp; piles unless they fall in the above section 12.5.3.
> Unless it says in the code/ASCE do we need to consider the orthogonal
effect on fdns/piles?&nbsp; Or is there std. way of doing this like 
> many engineers take this into consideration(conservative approach?) 
> Can you pl. comment on this? 
> Thanks Ravi Vasu 
> Ravi,RE: ASCE 7-05A pipe rack is part of a category of "nonbuilding
structures similar to buildings". This means that they have structural
systems and responses that are similar to buildings, but we needed a little
latitude regarding the systems that we could use that we could not get if
they were defined as a "building". We wanted to use as much of the
information as if the systems were part of buildings as we could.In answer
to your quesitons:When we design the foundation, is there any exception that
the fdn &amp; piles need not be checked for orthogonal load
combinations?NoCan anyone point to ASCE/IBC 2009 section about taking or not
considering ortho load Comb for fdn and Pile design?Section 15.1.1We did not
provide any changes or modifications to the design of foundations, nor did
we develop any exceptions to Section 12.5. Looking at Section 15.1.1
"....Design shall conform to the applicable requirements of other sections
as modified by this section. ...." Thus Section 12.5 is not modified and is
applicable.Chapter 15 was not intended to stand alone. It provides
modifications to other sections of the ASCE 7.The ASCE 7-10 is written
similarly.Regards, Harold Sprague
> Subject: Pile force check for orthogonal load combinationsDate: Wed, 27
Jul 2011 14:38:17 -0500From: Ravi.Vasu(--nospam--at)jacobs.comTo:
seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.orgList,In the design of non building structures
like pipe rack in SDC D, we design the steel pipe rackfor orthogonal load
comb. also. When we design the foundation, is there any exception that the
fdn &amp; pilesneed not be checked for orthogonal load combinations? The
ASCE 7-05, section 12.5.4 isnot clear about foundation check. It says about
column or wall design in any direction.(I am not sure about orthogonal
condition check for column/wall)Can anyone point to ASCE/IBC 2009 section
about taking or not considering ortho loadComb for fdn and Pile
design?ThanksRavi Vasu
> &nbsp;NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged
information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
viewing,copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by
unintendedrecipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message inerror, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deletingit from your computer. 		 	   		  

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********