I will give my opinion, I try to be fair & objective.
This thread is continuation from :
My opinion in this thread related with above thread from post#12 until post#17
In general case, I'm 100% agree with Parhyang doing such design is inappropriate, or I said in posting#12 as "improper design"
For general/common design such action that is building in lowest seismic design with SMRF --> cause cost inefficiency.
BUT, IN VERY SPECIAL CASE / REASONS, please underline it ( very special reasons ) it could be happen ( Essenza not fully wrong, wrong if used in general design )
JUST EXAMPLE, if in Zone 0 UBC 1997 built tallest building in the world, if the engineers consider blast load ( such as possibility of terrorist attack ) it could be done with SMRF design in lowest seismic Hazard area.
Simply of the idea is adding more reinforcing & detailing to increase ductility
I read such method / technique ( give more reinforcing & detailing to increase ductility ) in many technical paper about blast design.
About posting #15 - #17
Most important thing about Parhyang & Essenza's posting : suggestion to give close attention on seismic detailing, this stuff is very important in seismic design process.
My opinion about Parhyang & Essenza opinion in this thread
About Parhyang post#2 in this thread
For general case, I agree with point of Parhyang answer "one big reasons using capacity design concepts are economics perspective views"
And again as I said above for special reason ( for example blast design ) adding more reinforcing & detailing could be happen, but for general design, economic perspective is important.
Do you both ( Parhyang & Essenza ) still remember director/project manager in consultant firm always/often said :
Why ? Because they will sell their apartment units & still there competition from other developer.
Right ?
SUMMARY :
(1) I still in my opinion : I suggest our members to use "normal" relation Framing Type & Seismic Zone - Seismic Design Criteria.
Please underline it ---> it's for general case
(2) I get point from Parhyang's opinion, he agree with me about use "normal" relation Framing Type & Seismic Zone - Seismic Design Criteria
THE SIMPLE REASON IS to reach economic design, read my example above.
(3) I get point from Essenza's opinion, for special case add more reinforcing & detailing could be done.
I give example above about adding more reinforcing & detailing to increase ductility for blast design ( to consider possibility of terrorist attack ).
I hope we ( me, Parhyang & Essenza ) can review new Indonesian Seismic Design Code that will be launched in early of 2011.
Btw, I'm not yet have the draft, plz inform me if there anyone know link for draft of new Indonesian Seismic Design Code ?
I hope our ( me, Parhyang & Essenza ) discussion useful for all of you.
Thx
This thread is continuation from :
Code:
***************************************
Content of this section is hidden, You must be registered and activate your account to see this content. See this link to read how you can remove this limitation:
http://forum.civilea.com/thread-27464.html
***************************************
My opinion in this thread related with above thread from post#12 until post#17
Quote:My post #12
(a) Just imagine, what if a building located in lowest seismic hazard area & use SMRF ?
(b) Just imagine, what if a building located in highest seismic hazard area & use OMRF ?
Simply both extreme examples above are "improper design"
Quote:Essenza wrote ( post#13 )
What's wrong with (a)?, of course not (b)
In general case, I'm 100% agree with Parhyang doing such design is inappropriate, or I said in posting#12 as "improper design"
For general/common design such action that is building in lowest seismic design with SMRF --> cause cost inefficiency.
BUT, IN VERY SPECIAL CASE / REASONS, please underline it ( very special reasons ) it could be happen ( Essenza not fully wrong, wrong if used in general design )
JUST EXAMPLE, if in Zone 0 UBC 1997 built tallest building in the world, if the engineers consider blast load ( such as possibility of terrorist attack ) it could be done with SMRF design in lowest seismic Hazard area.
Simply of the idea is adding more reinforcing & detailing to increase ductility
I read such method / technique ( give more reinforcing & detailing to increase ductility ) in many technical paper about blast design.
About posting #15 - #17
Most important thing about Parhyang & Essenza's posting : suggestion to give close attention on seismic detailing, this stuff is very important in seismic design process.
My opinion about Parhyang & Essenza opinion in this thread
About Parhyang post#2 in this thread
For general case, I agree with point of Parhyang answer "one big reasons using capacity design concepts are economics perspective views"
And again as I said above for special reason ( for example blast design ) adding more reinforcing & detailing could be happen, but for general design, economic perspective is important.
Do you both ( Parhyang & Essenza ) still remember director/project manager in consultant firm always/often said :
Quote:"I think the dimension ( beam,column, wall ) could be smaller, try !"For example, general project such as family class apartment tower if the developer think a consultant firm "do inefficient design" of course they will go to other consultant firm that give them lower cost for their tower !
Why ? Because they will sell their apartment units & still there competition from other developer.
Right ?
SUMMARY :
(1) I still in my opinion : I suggest our members to use "normal" relation Framing Type & Seismic Zone - Seismic Design Criteria.
Please underline it ---> it's for general case
(2) I get point from Parhyang's opinion, he agree with me about use "normal" relation Framing Type & Seismic Zone - Seismic Design Criteria
THE SIMPLE REASON IS to reach economic design, read my example above.
(3) I get point from Essenza's opinion, for special case add more reinforcing & detailing could be done.
I give example above about adding more reinforcing & detailing to increase ductility for blast design ( to consider possibility of terrorist attack ).
I hope we ( me, Parhyang & Essenza ) can review new Indonesian Seismic Design Code that will be launched in early of 2011.
Btw, I'm not yet have the draft, plz inform me if there anyone know link for draft of new Indonesian Seismic Design Code ?
I hope our ( me, Parhyang & Essenza ) discussion useful for all of you.
Thx