[Urgent] CivilEA Technical Team
Current time: 09-21-2018, 07:22 AM
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: budis
Last Post: Grunf
Replies 17
Views 7606

[In Progress] [Urgent] CivilEA Technical Team
#1
Dear Admin & all members of CivilEA

Yesterday ( 17 Dec 2010 ) I read a thread :
***************************************
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
***************************************

I found a excel sheet about "pushover perf. point", this excel sheet is totally questionable because as far in my knowledge it's just the first step of procedure to get perf. point, still there others steps must do before find perf. point
It's manual pushover analysis lesson which usually given di master / doctoral degree program in USA & Europe.
This excel sheet is very dangerous & can cause misleading for user without strong basic knowledge of pushover analysis.

I'm really curious & don't understand
This excel sheet firstly shared since 03-23-2010 ( nearly 9 month in this forum ) & no one in this forum say it's wrong ?

We currently have 27,703 members registered, until today I post this thread.
To avoid misleading to our 27,703 members, I propose idea : we create "CivilEA Technical Team" to review specially for exel sheet, example of calculation shared in our forum
Where member of "CivilEA Technical Team" minimally is VIP level of our forum.
We have uploader team, we can create "CivilEA Technical Team" too ?

I understand that all of us have work, duty & daily activity ... maybe no need instantly review each new shared excel sheet or example calculation, but, "CivilEA Technical Team" when they have time, they will seriously review it & announce if found "misleading" excel sheet or example of calculation.

Hopely my idea useful for all of us & accepted by Admin & all protectors, moderators & all member of CivilEA
Thx

[-] The following 29 users say Thank You to budis for this post:
  • isurya, Dell_Brett, mary, oanm2000, Veggeta, robertsas, thebeatles, Sumatra, struceng, lizard, ranger, peixoto, ravisbassi, haze, vccalderon, ska51, nanban, Yasir, Ultra Zone, Adam Smith, hmwere, ivanveliki, mowafi3m, andersen3, mahfuzbangla, bigone, kostis, jaejeong, agelos100
Reply
#2
Dear Budis,

I think the essence of any forum is just the technical knowledge and information sharing.
What you just have done is exactly that spirit! The soul of any forum!
I think this requires no dedicated team of verification and validation of each post, just the concept I have outlined.
I repeat: - What you did, and so I congratulate him, is what is expected of active members and this in itself does not require the creation of dedicated staff, because if this team is created, we can consider that for the vast majority of users, it endorse that every post as correct, which hinders the ability of research and interpretation that must exist in the engineers.
Believe me: There's a lot of nonsense written in books, grotesque bugs in popular programs and highly dubious thesis published. What did you do your postings this is one of the most valuable contributions to this forum, and this type of behavior I (and I do so on behalf of the other moderators) encourage a lot!

My best regards

Dell Brett
[-] The following 22 users say Thank You to Dell_Brett for this post:
  • usman, techno, isurya, Grunf, mary, mahfuzbangla, oanm2000, datagap, thebeatles, RedHorse, Sumatra, budis, struceng, ranger, peixoto, student71, ravisbassi, vccalderon, Yasir, Ultra Zone, ivanveliki, andersen3
Reply
#3
EXCELLENT!!!
Good Job, dear Budis thumbup :clap: thumbup :clap:
We need quality users like you, not a lot of useless members
THANKS A LOT!
My best regards
oanm2000
[-] The following 13 users say Thank You to oanm2000 for this post:
  • datagap, budis, struceng, usman, ranger, mary, Dell_Brett, Grunf, peixoto, ravisbassi, Yasir, RANA WASEEM, cristi
Reply
#4
Dear All members of CivilEA
Maybe in Jan 2011 I will create a thread specially give review on some excel sheet / presentation / example, but for materials related to seismic design - pushover only, topic that I really love.
Just example I found "improper" attitude :
originally a presentation from ACECOM but he edit the word "ACECOM" in every page with his name & share that edited presentation to CivilEA
I think materials shared to forum must be original & unedited, right ?
Just wait until Jan 2011, because I focus on my thesis now.
Thx
[-] The following 15 users say Thank You to budis for this post:
  • thebeatles, concreteok, Grunf, Dell_Brett, struceng, peixoto, RedHorse, ravisbassi, subin91, cace-01, usman, cordoba123, ska51, oanm2000, Yasir
Reply
#5
Dear All CivilEA members

Before I have my own thread specially for my review on speadsheet/others materials in CivilEA, temporaryly I will add my new review in this thread.
My first plan is about review on seismic design - pushover stuff only, but if I know I will add also my review here.

Today I will give review about "14 story building with 5 underground stories"
***************************************
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
***************************************

I will not debate about the contents & comments in that thread, but I will give you other points of view about those topics

In building/structure design there many aspects to consider, just some of them :
1) aesthetics/architectural consideration, in very simple word : the good looking of the building
2) strength consideration, this aspect is all structural engineers deal with.
3) cost/economical efficiency
... & others

Specially for building with multistory basement [ underground-multistory ], I ever read a report about "cost efficiency analysis with case some buildings with various number of basements story"
It's too long if I must talk all of them here, but I will tell the summary of it.
Simply, a building with basement more than 2 story basement --> the cost become inefficient
Then for the case : "14 story building with 5 underground stories"
It will reached cost efficiency if change become : 17 story + 2 story basements

I remember accident many years ago in a hotel project with just 2 story basement in downtown of my city.
This accident occur because of careless in design-planning & construction process in construction process of basement
They dig the ground & because of lack of planning, occur "landslide" & burried workers ( until dead ) in this accident.

Just 2 story basement in my story above, can cause accident, just imagine 5 underground stories !!!
It really need extra planning specially when construction process, must consider "landslide" when dig the ground for underground stories.
And also cost-efficiency to do such building is an important aspect too

I hope my review useful for all of you
Thx
[-] The following 14 users say Thank You to budis for this post:
  • rendel_©, Grunf, ska51, cace-01, oanm2000, Dell_Brett, concreteok, ravisbassi, parhyang, jjmtz, Yasir, usman, itcssaec, mahfuzbangla
Reply
#6
Dear Budis:
Excellent effort and welcome your valuable contributions.
The optical that you present is correct, in relation to the Posts to up, and is a good starting point to begin technical and advantage discussions within the Forum.
Experiences with several levels of basements in Venezuela is that unless the project involves a specialist in geotechnical construction problems are insurmountable, with a greater frequency of events and accidents, almost exponentially, each additional basement level being planned .
Again, We welcome to you and applaud your proposals :clap:
Thank you very much, Budis
My best Regards
oanm2000
[-] The following 5 users say Thank You to oanm2000 for this post:
  • Dell_Brett, Grunf, ravisbassi, budis, usman
Reply
#7
I am in resonance with the discussion.

But I am not sure how the"peer review" will work. For one, there is just too much information been shared. After all, we are around 30,000. That will put us in the size of the third largest civil engineering company in the world. Think about it!!!

As a soil-structure specialist I will be glad to comment on what I come across. However, do understand that a lot of downloads I do are stored with the pack rat mentality - there for a rainy day gathering dust, a source to tap on during starvation. You get what I mean? A lot of us do it that way.

[-] The following 2 users say Thank You to ravisbassi for this post:
  • parhyang, budis
Reply
#8
Dear all member of CivilEA

First, Happy birthday to CivilEA

I will continue my review, today about following thread :
***************************************
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
***************************************

I will add important info related with that topic.
I will talk about relation between framing type & seismic zone - seismic design category

I'm focusing in 2 relation :
1) ACI 318/318M 1999 & UBC 97 & older building code
2) ACI 318/318M 2008 & IBC 2006 / ASCE 7-05

=================================
ACI 318/318M 1999 & UBC 97 & older building code
=================================

(*) Sway Ordinary --> design of reinforced concrete frame with "Ordinary moment-resisting frame (OMRF)"
(*) Sway Intermediate --> design of reinforced concrete frame with "Intermediate moment-resisting frame (IMRF)"
(*) Sway Special --> design of reinforced concrete frame with "Special moment-resisting frame (SMRF)"

Relation Framing Type ( Sway Special/Intermediate/ Ordindary) with Seismic Zone of UBC 1997
(*) Non Sway & OMRF use for design of frame that located in Seismic Zone 0 & 1 of UBC 1997
(*) IMRF use for design of frame that located in Seismic Zone 2 of UBC 1997
(*) SMRF use for design of frame that located in Seismic Zone 3 & 4 of UBC 1997

IMPORTANT NOTE
When ACI 318/318M 1999 published, originally their seismic design method refer to UBC 1997 / ASCE 7-95
With relation of framing type & seismic zone as I explain above
Then you must very careful if use ACI 318/318M 1999 with seismic design method other than UBC 1997 / ASCE 7-95

=============================
ACI 318/318M 2008 & IBC 2006 / ASCE 7-05
=============================

Relation "Framing Type" ( Sway Special/Intermediate/ Ordindary) with Seismic Design Category
1) SDC A
For RC Building located in lowest seismic hazard area
RC Building design as : Non Sway
2) SDC B
RC Building design as : "Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF)"
3) SCD C
RC Building design as : "Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame (IMRF)"
4) SDC D/E/F
RC Building design as : "Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF)"

SUMMARY
When you do seismic design of RC Building based on ACI 318/318M with ETABS/SAP2000,
then check whether your Framing Type match with your Seismic Zone - Seismic Design Category.
You must careful with relation Framing Type & Seismic Zone - Seismic Design Category.
You must set correct relation, if you careless your output is useless/meaningless.

I hope my review useful for all of you
Thx

Response to "ravisbassi"
I do not review all shared material in our forum
I focus on excel sheets / materials related with topics I really love that are seismic design & pushover + other topic if I know it.
Thx
[-] The following 7 users say Thank You to budis for this post:
  • thebeatles, ravisbassi, Dell_Brett, Grunf, oanm2000, techno, Veggeta
Reply
#9
This is the SUGGESTION section...

The continuing of this post must be moved to right section.


Regards

Dell Brett
[-] The following 4 users say Thank You to Dell_Brett for this post:
  • concreteok, budis, Grunf, oanm2000
Reply
#10
Dear Mr Dell Brett
I propose that all contents of this thread moved to a thread in "Problem Forum" with title "budis's review" ?
And I will constantly continue add my new review at there.
Please agree Sir.
Thx
[-] The following 4 users say Thank You to budis for this post:
  • Dell_Brett, Grunf, oanm2000, techno
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)