Review related to structural analisis - earthquake eng & design

[parhyang]

or you are the Misisipi PhD

look back my previous post, i said "him" and "he's" why did you think it's me. can you understand, i would like to says sorry if my english not really good.

People like you is an insult to civil engineering community

when a professor write about formula of newton second law, i just give appreciation to him and try follow then wait for next course. not says Kids as you did, who really make insult?

all of member here's anonymous not exception for myself, opinions without citations or refferences are nothing and waste the times. i means better trust from a paper/thesis because it's already discussed by known expert persons in the field specific areas. not in this discussions by anonymous without citation.

back to your states, when i give opportunities to trust someone by a papers and/or thesis it can be categories as an insult. funny u :)

[essenza]

I prefer people who states their understanding of a problem without too many copy and paste but lack of understanding. Unless you already done the research or calculation by yourself and approve it, citing other expert is no different then copy cat and doesn't trust his or herself knowledge.

I said any kid can do that means" anybody who don't know about SMF/IMF or SMF but understand basic algebra i believe can compare what misisipi Phd did. When you claim that for the above said matter by citing the misisipi PhD but you can't back it up actually u insult him or her.

My name is Donald Essen
I'm drop out and now working as stock trader.
Am i still anonymous now?
:JC_cheers:

However I believe you are good engineer Parhyang, not easy to find engineers in Indonesia who have curiosity like you but you need sometimes explain what you know from experience and your own analysis. Not always those who you called experts are right, even between them there are a lot of conflict of ideas, and they make mistake too. I think i can learn from your useful citation. Thanks

[parhyang]

My name is ...

thx, i'm still feel better with my anonymous :) feel free, yea ... freedom with responsibility. anonymous is not problems when comes with explanations, references and citations, is opensource culture were i living.

even between them there are a lot of conflict of ideas

of course yes, not all docs refferences i posted. only with my agreement, so when i post reff it's mean i read, understand and i agree.

I'm drop out

it's my big plans :) from my personal perspective the engineer firm atmosphere in ID is not good for my health. the tirany of urgent and inconsistency. i look for another way, not as in the firm.

actually i'm not says you're wrong, as can be seen from my first comment regarding to SMRF for low seismicity region yes it permited but i did not found any reasons. i think it's need further study for base shear versus ductility factor, and strength versus ductility itself in relations to material consumption and of course in overall structural systems including foundations.



am i says you're wrong ? not.

[Dell_Brett]

Dear essenza and parhyang:
This discussion went beyond the bounds of technical and divergence has entered the field staff. This is unfortunate and unnecessary! This is a forum for engineers, viewed by students, engineering and professionals who seek technical expertise, support for professional activities and fellowship!
We will not admit provocations, insults, ego problems and behaviors that are not mature enough to denote the perfect harmony of this forum!
Please think about it and give us gift: -The technical knowledge you can share in!
Both possess demonstrated knowledge and selfless spirit! Keep the focus on these virtues and respect the limitations that we all have!

This post must end this issue!

Regards

Dell Brett

[budis]

I will continue my review.

My plan ahead, I will review IBC2000, IBC2006/ASCE 7-05 & IBC2009 & excel sheet related with all those building codes.
I start my review on IBC 2000, my review of IBC2000 consist of several parts.
This posting is first part of my IBC2000's review.
Next posting ( after new year ) maybe will explain why I start my review from IBC 2000 & I will explain about seismic design based on IBC 2000 + if possible I will provide example of manual calculation of seismic design & detailing of reinforced concrete beam/column.

OK, I start my review now.

IBC 2000 REVIEW PART 1

I start my review on IBC 2000 from "Use & Occupancy Classification"
You can find this topic at chapter 3 of IBC 2000 start from page 23.

General Classification of "Use & Occupancy Classification" [ IBC 2000 Section 302.1 page 23 ]
1) Assembly Group A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 & A-5
2) Business Group B
3) Educational Group E
4) Factory & Industrial Group F-1 & F-2
5) High Hazard Group H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4 & H-5
6) Institutional Group I-1, I-2, I-3 & I-4
7) Mercantile Group M
8) Residential Group R-1, R-2 & R-3
9) Storage Group S-1 & S-2
10) Utility & Miscellaneous Group U

Detail definition - specification of each Group & explanation about "Use & Occupancy Classification" Group A until Group U you can read in IBC 2000 page 26 until 38

I will give examples of each Group to make you fast & easier to understand "Use & Occupancy Classification" of IBC 2000, please read example below :

Group A-1
Example :
motion picture theaters, TV & Radio Studio admitting audience & theaters

Group A-2
Example :
restaurant, bars & night-clubs

Group A-3
Example :
art galleries, museum & auditoriums

Group A-4
Example :
tennis court, arena

Group A-5
Example :
stadium, grandstands & bleachers

Group B
Example :
bank, post office, professional service office, fire & police station, educational occupancy for above "12th grade"

Group E
Example :
building for educational purpose through "12th grade"

Group F-1 : Factory-Industrial Moderate-Hazard Occupancy
Example :
factory- industrial of aircraft, automobile & other motor vehicles, clothing, furniture, machinery & metals

Group F-2 : Factory-Industrial Low-Hazard Occupancy
Example :
factory-industrial of brick & masonry, ceramic product, glass product, gypsum, ice

Group H, H1 to H5
I'm sorry, it will be too long if I write here
Please see at IBC 2000 page 27-33

Group I-1
Example :
residential, board & care facilities, group homes, social rehabilitation facilities, alcohol & drug centers

Group I-2
Example :
hospital, mental hospital, detoxification facility

Group I-3
Example :
day care facilities

Group M
Example :
department store, market, retail/whole-sale store, sales room

Group R-1
Example :
boarding house ( transient ), motel, hotel

Group R-2
Example :
boarding house ( not transient ), apartment, dormitory, monastery

Group R-3
Example :
1) all building where the occupants are primarily permanent & not classified as R-1 & R-2 where not more than 5 persons in 24 hours
2) similar with example of Group I-1 with 5 or fewer persons

Group R-4
Example :
1) all building for "residential care / assisted living facilities" including more than 5 but not more than 16 occupants ( excluding staff )
2) similar with example of Group I-1 with at least 6 & not more than 16 persons

Group S-1 : building for storage uses - moderate-hazard storage
Example :
aircraft hangar, storage of bags, boots-shoes, clothing, paper, furniture, lumber, grain

Group S-2 : building for storage uses - low-hazard storage
Example :
storage of food product, fruit & vegetable, meat, glass, cement in bags

Group U
Example :
agriculture building, grain silos, car ports, private garage, green-houses

to be continued ... to IBC 2000 REVIEW PART 2 ( after new year )

I hope my review useful for all of you
Thx

[budis]

Dear all CivilEA member

I delay continue my review about "IBC 2000 & its related" because I found more interesting topic.
You can read here :

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

The thread about "Seismic Design for Flat Plate System"

In this posting I focus on the flat plate stuff first & I will review the seismic design of it in next posting.

FLAT PLATE

When you design flat plate, you must check "shear stuff" below :
1) check "wide-beam action shear"
2) check "two-way action shear"
3) check "moment-shear transfer at slab-column connection"

Simply in all 3 checking above must : (phi) x Vc > Vu
If you use ACI 318 2008, phi for shear = 0.75

"Wide-beam action shear"
The investigation is made at the critical section at distance "d" from face of column support
For this checking Vc use equation 11.3 of ACI 318 2008

"Two-way action shear"
The investigation is made at the critical section "bo" located at "d/2" from column perimeter
For this checking Vc use 3 equations about "two-way action shear" in ACI 318 2008
You must be careful, you must know when you must use all those 3 equations & when you only use the third equation.

If Vu > (phi) x Vc in one or more of 3 shear checking above, you must increase the shear strength of your flat plate with 1 of several methods below :
1) increase shear strength by increasing "strength ( fc' ) of your flat plate
2) increase shear strength by increasing slab thickness at column support with drop panels
3) increase shear strength by adding shear bar reinforcement
4) increase shear strength by adding steel I shapes
5) increase shear strength by adding headed shear stud reinforcement

(*) Doing first method above ( increasing "strength ( fc' ) ), you must do cost analysis carefully to avoid cost inefficiency if you choose this method.
Because you increase "strength ( fc' ) in all over flat plate, with fact we just need increasing of strength in the critical section only.
(*) I think the most simplest/easiest way is adding "drop panels" & among method 3 until 5 above, adding shear bar reinforcement is easier.

If you use "US units" it will be no problem when you use US concrete book such as PCA book & others.
You can instantly apply it for your design.
BUT, if you use "metric units" be careful, you must verify first the formula you will use from ACI 318M, some formulas / equations are different between in "US units" & in "metric units".

I will continue this topic in my next posting.
I promise after this topic end, I will continue my review about "IBC 2000 & its related"
I will continue my review maybe around 4 or 5 Jan 2011 ( 2 or 3 days ahead ) because I still doing my thesis & for several days I will totally focus on my thesis.
I hope all of you can understand.

I hope my review useful for all of you
Thx

[budis]

This posting is continuation of Post #16

iceman84
It is recommended, but not mandatory to use structural walls to resist lateral forces. The joints should be checked, so that no plastic deformation appears there.

I think iceman84 answer based on Ghosh's book " Design of Concrete Building for Earthquake & Wind Forces" 2nd Edition, 1995
This is an old good book.
This book talk about seismic code of UBC 1985, UBC 1991 & UBC 1994.
There example about flat slab - column frame in this book for low & lower medium seismic hazard area.
I think iceman84's answer should be added with :
flat slab - column frame is for low - lower_medium seismic hazard area only

For tall building with flat-plate in medium & high seismic hazard area, the use of structural wall is a must & not use column is no problem.
But, generally ( in real projects ) it use both column & wall for lateral load resistant system.

Things about structural wall in ACI 318/318M 2008

# ONE
New in ACI 318/318M 2008 about requirements for reinforcement in Special moment Frame & Special Structural Wall :
Use of longitudinal reinforcement with strength substantially higher than that assumed in design will lead to high shear & bond stress at the time of development of yield moments.
This condition can cause brittle failure in shear & bond, & should be avoided.
Ceiling ( max limit ) is placed on the actual yield strength of the steel.
Actual yield strength based on mill test does not exceeded "fy" by more than 125 MPa or 18000 psi.

#TWO
New in ACI 318/318M 2008 about flat_slab - column
Read chapter 21.3.6.8 about shear design requirements for flat_slab - column joint in intermediate moment frame

#THREE
Special RC Wall vs Ordinary RC Wall in ACI 318/318M 2008
$$$
[ SPECIAL RC WALL ] Rho min for vertical reinforcement = 0.0025
[ ORDINARY RC WALL - US Units ] Rho min for vertical reinforcement -->
= 0.0012 for No 5 bar or smaller, fy not less 60000 psi
= 0.0015 for larger than No 5 bar, fy not less 60000 psi
[ ORDINARY RC WALL - Metric Units ] Rho min for vertical reinforcement -->
= 0.0012 for bar not larger than No 16, fy not less 420 MPa
= 0.0015 for other bar ( larger than No 16 ), fy not less 420 MPa
$$$
[ SPECIAL RC WALL ] Rho min for horizontal reinforcement = 0.0025
[ ORDINARY RC WALL - US Units ] Rho min for horizontal reinforcement -->
= 0.002 for No 5 bar or smaller, fy not less 60000 psi
= 0.0025 for larger than No 5 bar, fy not less 60000 psi
[ ORDINARY RC WALL - Metric Units ] Rho min for horizontal reinforcement -->
= 0.002 for bar not larger than No 16, fy not less 420 MPa
= 0.0025 for other bar ( larger than No 16 ), fy not less 420 MPa

I hope my review useful for all of you.
Thx