[IN PROGRESS] [Urgent] CivilEA Technical Team

[essenza]

Dear Budis

Great effort, however i want to add to your comment regarding framing tyoe and zone category. As you understand in Indonesian Code we don't have caluse about what framing type permitted in what zone, so we don't have obligation to match the framing type with zone number. On that case what we do, we just ignore special seismic load effects in define menu and use engineering judgment in our design. I always use special moment frame whatever the zone is. There is nothing wrong with IMF seismic reduction factor in high seismic area (zone 6) with SMF design :) isn't it ?

[budis]

Dear essenza

Thanks visit & participate in my thread.
I appreciate your effort adding info in my thread.

Response to your comment :

1) In my review I talk about :
- "pure relation Framing Type & Seismic Zone" ACI 318/318M 1999 & UBC 1997 ( & similar older buiding code )
- "pure relation Framing Type & Seismic Design Criteria" ACI 318/318M 2008 & ibc 2006 / ASCE 7-05
I did not talk abut our Indonesia Building Code.

2) I just want to remind our members when do design with ACI 318 using ETABS & SAP2000, must be careful with relation Framing Type & Seismic Zone - Seismic Design Criteria in case pure relation of ACI 318 & UBC or IBC
Point of my explanation can be explained in extreme examples below :
(a) Just imagine, what if a building located in lowest seismic hazard are & use SMRF ?
(b) Just imagine, what if a building located in highest seismic hazard are & use OMRF ?
Simply both extreme examples above are "improper design"
I suggest our members to use "normal" relation Framing Type & Seismic Zone - Seismic Design Criteria, & again I underline, I did not talk about our National Building Code

3) Flash about our Seismic Design Code ( Indonesia Seismic Design Code ) :
(*) Our Seismic Design Code, when you see at "reference" it said that one of reference for our seismic design code is UBC 1997, right ?
But, when you read carefully at UBC 1997 ( & NEHRP ) you will never find formula for "R" as in our seismic design code.
In UBC 1997 only said :

1630.3.2 Determination of R.
The notation R shall be taken from Table 16-N.

(*) About R, I prefer check actual R of my structure via pushover than formula in our seismic design code.
(*) Jakarta in UBC 97 is Zone 4 ( highest ), fact in our seismic design code Jakarta just Zone 3 of 6 ( where Zone 6 = highest )

4) Flash about Indonesia Concrete Code
When use ETABS / SAP2000 to design reinforced concrete building, be careful, we must edit the default parameters in ETABS / SAP2000 Concrete Design so that meet / match with criteria in Indonesia Concrete Code.

I'm glad if we together ( if possible ) can create a thread ( not in this tread ) specially all stuff related with our national code ?

Thx

[essenza]

Sorry i thought u type other building code :D
However comment again about this:
(a) Just imagine, what if a building located in lowest seismic hazard are & use SMRF ?
(b) Just imagine, what if a building located in highest seismic hazard are & use OMRF ?

What's wrong with (a)?, of course not (b).

Regards

DE

[parhyang]

What's wrong with (a)?, of course not (b).

is not about wrong or right decisions, i think inappropriate if using fully ductility for low seismicity regions or an opposites using low ductility (elastic design) for high seismicity regions.

although base shear force is relative equals (V vs R), detailing will be govern during seismic excitation in structural behavior. ductility are not the same; beam and column stirrups for confinement, minimum main bars reinforcement, beam/column joint confinement.

[essenza]

why inappropriate if using full ductility for low seismicity regions?. I need to understand because it is against my understanding about ductility.

[parhyang]

using full ductility for low seismicity regions?

when using fully ductility for low seismic region, i just have some questions: for what seismicity region maps? and for what complex detailing requirement. just remembering me to my senior in past times, he scared since his 4 storey building collapse during seismic loads. the buildings are in areas of high seismicity regions. next time he designed a building will always using fully ductility wherever it's built although in low seismicity regions and still using unecesarry detailing, sometimes i think it's a like a barriers during constructions stages.

[essenza]

So u or your senior will always use full ductility (SMF) in any seismic zone?. if yes that's agree well with me, and yes that's true, detailing is what important especially during construction. Even if you are slightly wrong in calculating the R value, slightly wrong in picking seismic zone and not conservative in your seismic force. Trust me your structure will survive, people will be saved than doing all that stuff like PSHA, Pushover or Nonlinear Dynamics. Ductility is the heart of all earthquake resistant design and proper detailing work is what ductility all about, and i think that's what engineer is paid for :), which is provide ductility to the structure :lol:

[Grunf]

Dear friends,

Thank you all for making your contributions to this thread but I think this thread needs to be closed because budis's suggestion is accepted and new thread by budis is opened/ made. This section of the forum (as in we are now) is called Forum Discussion / Suggestion, so I suggest that all further discussion should be continued in this thread:

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

Admin you are the only one who can do the close-job when this section of the forum comes into the question.

Best regards,
Grunf