0 Up votes0 Down votes

0 views9 pagesAISC INGLES

Nov 16, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

AISC INGLES

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

AISC INGLES

© All Rights Reserved

- A Tale for the Time Being
- Fault Lines
- Soul Harvest: The World Takes Sides
- The Sea Glass Sisters: Prelude to The Prayer Box
- Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded: August 27, 1883
- Krakatoa
- The Trembling Hills
- Pacific: Silicon Chips and Surfboards, Coral Reefs and Atom Bombs, Brutal Dictators, Fading Empires, and the Coming Collision of the World's Superpowers
- Pacific: Silicon Chips and Surfboards, Coral Reefs and Atom Bombs, Brutal Dictators, Fading Empires, and the Coming Collision of the World's Superpowers
- The Gifted: A New Edition of Terri Blackstock's Classic Tale
- 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed
- Aftershock
- Rogue Wave
- Judgment of Paris: California vs. France and the Historic 1976 Paris Tasting That Revolutionized Wine
- Earthquake-Resistant Structures: Design, Build, and Retrofit
- Industrial Power Engineering Handbook
- In My Sister's House: A Novel
- The Hatching: A Novel
- Ghosts of the Tsunami: Death and Life in Japan's Disaster Zone
- Cataclysm

You are on page 1of 9

Generally, seismic load resisting systems are classifiéd into three levels of performance,

designated as ordinary, intermediate, or special, depending on the level of ductility that the

system is expected to provide. A system designated as ordinary is detailed to meet certain

ductility and redundancy requirements, but the requirements are not as stringent as those of

systems classified as intermediate or special. Also, structures not specifically designed or

detailed for seismic resistance by the Seismic Provisions are referred to as low-seismic structures

throughout this Seismic Manual. It is important to note, however, that even low- seismic steel

structures possess some inherent amount of seismic resistance, which may be adequate to resist

a limited amount of seismic demand. See the discussion “R Equal to 3 Applications” below.

Earthquakes cause vibratory ground motions that may occur in all directions. The horizontal

components of these motions produce horizontal ground accelerations, which cause structural

accelerations and impart energy to the structure.

vibration frequencies so that the energy imparted to the structure is caused by the combined

effect of many accelerations acting at many frequencies. A spectral plot of these accelerations

is a graphical summary of the peak response (acceleration) for a large number of ground motion

natural periods of vibration.

Figure 1-1a (using natural period instead of frequency) shows a typical earthquake spectral

acceleration plot. Each point on the curve can be thought of as the amount of energy at that

vibration frequency that the earthquake can impart to the structure. The closer the fun-

damental frequency of the structure is to a frequency containing energy, the more the structure

will feel the earthquake.

Figure 1-1a shows that for this ground motion most of the earthquake accelerations (and hence

the energy imparted into a structure) fall in a natural period range of 0.2 second to 1.0 second.

Thus, structures with natural periods in this range will collect more energy than structures with

periods outside this range. A typical two-story building has a period near 0.2 second, and the

period for a 10-story building is approximately 1.0 second. Since these frequencies are in the

portion of the spectrum that contains most of the earthquake energy, buildings with 10 stories

and less tend to “feel” the earthquake more than taller structures. Low-rise buildings also tend

to be stiff and tall structures tend to be flexible (Figures 1—1b and 1—1c). Stiff souctures tend

to attract a larger percentage of displacement-induced force than do flexible structures. For

these two reasons, earthquake-induced forces in stiff structures (generally those of 10 stories

or less) tend to be a larger percentage of the structure’s weight than those in flexible (taller)

structures. Tall, flexible sbuctures generally experience a greater total deflection (drift).

modes. Each mode has a deflected shape and a period (or frequency) of vibration. Since an

earthquake ground motion contains a spectrum of acceleration components (each containing

energy), each acceleration frequency that corresponds to a mode frequency imparts energy

into the structure. For example, Figure 1—2 shows a typical five-story building, which behaves

as a vertical column with a lumped mass at each floor level. Application of a

code-specified earthquake design spectrum produces several mode-deflected shapes, the

most significant of which are shown. Although the deflected shapes are shown separately, the

actual building motion is based upon the combination of these deflected shapes that occurs at

any instant. The participation percentage indicates the mode(s) that “attract” the greatest

amount of energy from the earthquake. As can be seen, Mode 1 dominates the way this

particular building responds to the earthquake. The participation percentages shown in Figure

1—2 do not add up to 100 percent because there are additional modes whose participation is

less than 1 percent.

(SUG). There are three SUGs (I, O, BI), based on the nature of the structure’s occu- pancy and

the risk to society that would be a consequence of earthquake damage to the structure. The

SUGs are used in determining the Seismic Design Category (SDC) for a structure. Also,

Importance Factors (I) are based on the SUG, and hence are related to structure occupancy and

use. The Importance Factor, /, is used in the Equivalent Lateral Force analysis method (described

later) to compute earthquake-induced forces on and in the structure.

The NEHRP Provisions (FEMA 368/369) define earthquake ground motion hazards based on the

seismicity of the site. The approach of the NEHRP Provisions is intended to provide a uniform

margin are defined in terms of maximun considered earthquake (MCE) ground motions.

The MCE ground motions are based on a set of rules that depend on the seismicity of an

individual region, while the design ground motions are based on a lower-bound estimate of

The margin against collapse inherent in structures designed to the NEHRP provisions. This

lower – bound margin was judged, base don experience, to correspond to the factor of 1.5

used to determine the design ground motion. Consequently, the design eathquake ground

motion is established at a ground shaking level that is 1/1.5 (or 2/3) of the MCE groynd

motion.

For most regions of the nation, the MCE ground motion is defined with a uniform probability

of exceedence of 2 percent in 50 years, which corresponds to a return periodo f about 2500

years. While stronger shaking tan this could occur, it is considered economically impractical to

design for such rare ground motions, and the selection of the 2-percent probabily of

exceedence in 50 years as the MCE ground motion is considere dan aceptable leve lof seismic

safety.

Buildings subject to seismic forces are designed o allow controlled inelastic, ductile

deformations of the system. A building’s Seismic Design Category (SDC) establishes the

minimum required performance level of the structure, based on the location, soil condition,

on the required level of ductile performance for the structural system. There are six SDCs,

designated by the letters A through F, with a being the least severe and F being the most

severe.

Determination of the SDC involver three primary steps. First, the mapped spectral

accelerations for a building, Ss and S1, are determined from maps found in ASCE7. Next, the

design earthquake accelerations at short periods, SDS, and at one – second, SD1, are found by

adjusting the accelerations SS and S1 FOR soil conditions, and then multiplying by 2/3 as

prescribed in ASCE 7. Finally, the design earthquake accelerations and the seismic use groups

are used to determine the SDC, according to ASCE 7. The acceleration (SDS or SD1) that yields the

higher category must be used in design.

ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Seismic forces on the structure result from the lateral acceleration due to the earthquake

ground motion, essentially as a function of F=ma. The seismic force resisting system is

designed to resist the induced forces and dissipate the energy causing the acceleration of the

structure.

ASCE 7 describes six procedures for determining the distortions and forces in structures

subject to earthquake ground motion. These are (in order of increasing difficulty and

expected accuracy):

the structure)

The index force and the simplified analysis procedures are “alternate” methods that have

limited application and must be approved by the authority having jurisdiction. The remaining

methods account for dissipation of earthquake input energy by inelastic distortion of the

structure.

The Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) procedure and the Modal Analysis procedure involve linear

elastic analyses that use earthquake effects adjusted to account for expected inelastic

behavior of the structure. Both are approximate methods of analysis useful within the

limitations of their applicability (see FEMA 369). The last two methods (Push-over Analysis,

Inelastic Response History Analysis) are generally not required except in special simations.

According to ASCE 7, the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) analysis is permitted for all structures

except those with certain structural irregularities, and the Modal Analysis is per- mitted for all

structures. Both analyses use four important seismic parameters: the response modification

coefficient, fi; the overstrength factor, f2p; the deflection amplification factor, Cd: and the

reliability or redundancy coefficient, p.

The equivalent lateral forcé method involves the application of a set of representative or

equivalent forces on each level of the structure that produce horizontal deflections that

approximate the deflections caused by the ground motion. A total horizontal forcé, called the

seismic base shear, Vs, is first computed. The base shear is distributed vertically to each level

of the structure as forces,Fv at each level, x. A linear elastric analysis is then performed to

determine the seismic forcé effects, QE, (axial force, shear, moment) in the structural

components.

The base shear, Vs, deprends on estrimated mass, stiffness, period of vibration, and damping

of the structure, as well as the characteristics of the soil and the carthquake ground motion

accelerations. The magnitude of Vs also depends on the amount of earthquake energy that the

structure is expected to dissipate by inelastic distortion, Atupical form of the expression for Vs

is

𝑉𝑆 = 𝐶𝑆 𝑊

Where:

𝑆𝐷𝑆 𝐼 0.044𝑆𝐷𝑆 𝐼

𝑅

𝐶𝑆 {𝑆 𝐼 } ≥ { 0.5 𝑆1 𝐼

𝐷1

𝑅𝑇 𝑅𝑇

SDS and SD1 are the design ground accelerations (base don structure and soil propertiens, as

well as spectral accelerations SS and S1); I in the occupancy importance factor: W is the

effective seismic weight of the structure (the total dead load plus applicable portions of other

loads); T is the fundamental period of the structure, for which a simplifed approximate building

period, Ta, may be used; and R is the response modification coefficient.

The seismic Design Category is used, along with the lateral system type, to establish a mínimum

level of inelastic, ductile performance that is required for a structure. The corresponding

expected system performance is codified in the form of an R-factor, which is a reduction factor

applied to the lateral forcé to balance the level of ductilitu in a strctural sustem with the required

strength of system.

The response modification coeffecient, R, represet the ratio of forces that would develop in

the seismic load resisting system (SLRS) under the specified ground motion if the structure

possessed a pure linearly elastic response to the prescribed forces. Then a higher R-factor is

applied, the system is expected to exhibit a greater deformation capacity and may be designed

for a lower equivalent lateral force in the linear elastic analysis. Figure 1-3 shows the

relationship between R and the design-level forces, along with the corresponding lateral

deformation of the structural system (FEMA 2000).

Factors that determine the magnitude of the response modification factor are the predicted

performance of the system subjected to strong ground motion, the vulnerability of the gravity

load resisting system to a failure of elemtens in the SLRS, the level and reliability of the

inelasticity the system can attain, and potential backup frame resistance such as that which is

provided by dual-frame systems. As illustrated in Figure 1-3 in order for a system to utilize

higher R factors, the lateral system must have multiple yielding elements, and the other

elements of the system must have adequate strength and deformation capacity to remain

stable at the máximum lateral deflection levels. If the system redundancy and element

overstregth cannot be achieved, a lower value of R should be incorporated in the design and

detailing of the structure.

R equal to 3 applications

Builindigs designed utilizing R equal to 3 must meet the requirements of the AISC Specification

based upon the code-specified forces distributed throughout the framing. The resulting

systems have ductility associated with conventional Steel framing not specifically detailed for

high-seismic resistance. The seismic Provisions are not intended to apply to structures

designed with R equal to 3 or les. These systems are permitted in seismic design categories A,

B, and C, but not in seismic design categories D, E, or F.

R grater than 3 applications are intended for buildings that are designed to meet the

requirements of both the seismic provisions and the AISC specification. The use of R greater

than 3 in the calculation of the seismic base shear requires the use of a seismically detailed

system that is representative of the R selected in the design. Consider the following three

examples:

configured so that energy dissipation will occur by tensión yielding and/or compresión

buckling in the braces. The connections of the braces to the columns and beams and

between the columns and beams themselves must then be proportioned to remain

essentially elastic as the undergo these deformations, See figure 1-4.

2. Eccentrically braced Frame (EBF) systems-EBF systems are generally configured so that

energy dissipation will occur by shear yielding and/or flexural yielding in the link. The

beam outside the link, connections, braces, and columns must then be proportioned

to remain essentially elastic as they undergo these deformations. See figure 1-5.

3. Special moment frame (SMF) systems-SMF systems are generally configured so that

energy dissipation will occur by flexural yielding in the gigders near, but away from,

the connection of the girders to the columns. The connections of the girders to the

columns and the columns themselves must then be proportioned to remain essentially

elastic as the undergo these deformation. See figure 1-6.

As a result of these special requirements, which force the deformations to occur in specific

locations, R greater than 3 design and construction will generally cost more than R equal to

3 design and construction.

The code - specified base accelerations used to calculate the seismic forces are not

necesarily maximums. Rather, they represent the intensity of ground motions that have

beem selected a reasonable for design purposes. Accordingly, the requirements in both

the seismic provisions and the Specification must be met to ensure hat the resulting

frames can undergo controlled deformations in a ductile, well-distributed manner. The

design provisions are also intended to result in ditributed deformations throughout the

frame to increase the level of available energy dissipation and corresponding level of

ground motion that can be withsood.

The connections will also be much more robust to transmit the member-strength-based

force demands. Net sections will often require special attention to avoid havin fracture

states control. Special material requirements, design considerations, and construction

practices must be followed.

Redundancy Factors

Adequate redundancy is ensured whem a large number of hinges form throughout the

structure in a progressive manner and when no one element is required to provide full

seismic resistance of the strcture. To account for a mínimum level of redundancy in the

structure, the reliability factor, ρ, is used, bases on the floor área and the number of

frames resisting the seismic force. When structures do have redundancy, this factor

amplifies the lateral forces used in the design of the lateral sytem. The elastic analysis of

the SLRS is performed using Vs based on the tabulated value of R, and ρ is applied to the

resulting QE member forcé effects.

For structures in SDCs A, B, and C, ρ = 1.0 is permitted. The reliability factor, ρ, must be

determined in acordance with ASCE 7 Section 12.3.4.2 and used for all structures in SDCs

D, E, and F. Because of the need for redundancy in Moment Frames and Braced Frames,

the special requirements of ASCE 7 Table 12.3-3 apply. Often, ρ in SDCs D, E, and F will

equal 1.3. These limitations are intended to provide sufficient redundancy in what are

typically drift-controlled systems.

Overstrength factors

All seismic load resisting systems rely on dissipation of earthquake energy through some

varying level of inelastic behavior. However, ductility must be used with care, as the details

can affect the level of ductility available. To account for this, an overstrength factor, Ω𝐷 . Is

used and the specific components that must be designed to remain nominally elastic are

designed for an amplified forcé Ω0 𝑄𝐸 . The locations where this factor must be considered

are stipulated in the seismic provisions.

Seismic provision Section 4.1 requires that the required srength be determined using the

load, load factores and load combination stipulatedin the applicable building code. In

current U.S, model buiding codes, these ítems are typically base don ASCE 7. For this

reason, ASCE 7 is used as the basis for load determination hereing. Wowever, thethe

presetations of loads and load combinations in this seismic differs slightly from that in

ASCE 7.

Consider the load combinations given in ASCE 7 Section 2.3.2 (sea alto section 12.4.2)

For the case when the effects of the dead and earthquake load are addictive, the load

combination give is

1.2𝐷 + 1.0𝐸 + 𝐿 + 0.2𝑆

and E is defined as

𝐸 = 𝜌𝑄𝐸 + 0.2𝑆𝐷𝑆 𝐷

Substituting Equation 1-4 into Equation 1-3 yields

Fort he case when the effects of the dead load and eathquake load counteract, the load

combination given is

and E is defined as

𝐸 = 𝜌𝑄𝐸 + 0.2𝑆𝐷𝑆 𝐷

Substituting Equation 1-7 into Equation 1-6 yields

Similar substitutions can be made when E is based on the amplified seismic load provisions

(0.9 + 0.2𝑆𝐷𝑆 )𝐷 + Ω0 𝑄𝐸 + 1.6𝐻

Note that ASCE 7 Section 2.3.2, Exception 1 allows a 0.5 load factor on live load in some

cases.

Adequacy of a seismic load resisting system (SLRS) requires that it be suitable to undergo

the deformations that result as its components deform inelastically to dissipate

earthquake energy. A building with a properly designed SLRS can still behave poorly if the

non-SLRS structural components are not able to safely deform along with the SLRS.

Likewise, nonstructural components such as exterior cladding and curtain walls can pose

falling hazards or impede egress from the building if they are not secured to the building in

a manner that is compatible with the deformations of the structural components.

deflections, 𝛿𝑥𝑒 (computed by elastic analysis using the reduced equivalent lateral forces

on the structure), by Cd to produce an estimate of the drift produced by the design ground

motion, such that

The design story drift, Δ, is the difference in the absolu e deflections, 𝛿𝑥 , at the center of

mass at the top and bottom of the story under consideration.

Stability Coe0icient

The stability coefficient, θ (ASCE 7), is a measure of the structure’s sensitivity to second

order effects at each story level x:

Px is the total vertical design load at and above level x, A is the design story drift, Vx is the

horizontal seismic shear acting over the height of the story (i.e., between levels z and x-

1),is the story height below level x, and Cd is the structure deflection amplification factor.

When θ≤ 0.10, second-order effects are negligible. When 0.1 < θ≤θmax, moments and

forces are increased by multipying the storyshear, Vx (obtained by the ELF análisis) by the

multiplier θ (1 — θ) and recomputing the seismic forces in the story. The design story drift,

∆, is also amplified by this multiplier. The maximun value θmax, given in ASCE 7 represent a leve lof

deformation that is considered excessive.

Drift Limits

Seismic design requirements include drift limits, usually expressed in terms of story drifts, Limiting story drift

helps to control component inelastic strain in the SLRS and to maintain structural stablity. Drift limitations

also help to reduce daamage to nonstructural building components. Design story drif limits are given in

ASCE 7. Where second-order effects must be included, the amplified ∆ is used in the drift limit check.

- Malhotra, P., Wenk, T., Wieland, A. “Simple Procedure for Seismic Analysis of Liquid-Storage Tanks“Uploaded byAlejandro Jose
- I1252-LI-CS-SKT-575Uploaded bykiran
- 529-2165-1-PB.pdfUploaded bySamarMomin
- nternational Journal of Computational Engineering Research(IJCER) is an intentional online Journal in English monthly publishing journal. This Journal publish original research work that contributes significantly to further the scientific knowledge in engineering and Technology.Uploaded byInternational Journal of computational Engineering research (IJCER)
- Seismic Retrofit of School Buildings in Britishcol 59ef6b0c1723dd25d245a1d9Uploaded bybaseball604
- IITK_RDSO_27_04_10[1]Uploaded byGirish
- IJRI-CCE-01-005Uploaded byijripublishers
- Science (1)Uploaded bydebdutta002
- 5_Casotto_et_al-2015-Fragility_Industrial_buildings.pdfUploaded byenrique cruz salomon
- Performance Based Seismic Analysis of BuildingsUploaded byEditor IJTSRD
- 13_1465.pdfUploaded byShaleek Ahmed Shukhriya
- 211CE2028Uploaded byAnonymous ELujOV3
- A Review of Research on Seismic Behaviour of Irregular Building Structures Since 2002Uploaded byAlejandro Hernández Martínez
- Dissertation2007-GalliUploaded byJesús Enrique Martínez González
- Dolsek VEESD PaperID 480Uploaded byflacoc
- nistgcr10-917-4Uploaded byPicollus
- Performance-Based Earthquake Design.pdfUploaded byAlrack sinner
- New Seismic Intensity Parameters for Rotational ComponentsUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- Seismic Performance AssessmentUploaded byMuhammad Yasin
- SeismiccUploaded bybasabi12
- Seismic Design of Hillside Light Timber Frame Buildings.pdfUploaded byPatrick Saint-Louis
- USGS Seismic Design Criteria - Detailed ReportUploaded byAkshay Prabhakar
- Topic01-CourseIntroductionNotesUploaded byCem Demir
- SEISMIC ISOLATION DESIGN OF THE SAINT JOHN’S HEALTH CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECTUploaded bymingul
- Review of Seismic Codes on Liquid TanksUploaded by강철민
- e-41Uploaded byIman Satria
- SACSUploaded byalibbaa
- Seismic Performance of Steel Pallet Racks GreciaUploaded byEdjavier Castillo
- 11Uploaded byVishnu Samy
- Determination of Standard Response SpectraUploaded byCesar Serrano

- Combined StressUploaded byRodrigo Fagundes
- Virtual Lab 2Uploaded byamanyannaggar
- @Week 9-LAB 8 - CIU,CID TRIAXIAL (Level 0).pdfUploaded byAmirah Shafeera
- Electrical Equipment ProtectionUploaded byravi chandra mavuri
- AcetophenoneUploaded byDinda Melissa Ardi
- Meroterpenes From Peperomia OreophilaUploaded byRubens RBarbeito
- NiZnOUploaded byTamilan Tamil
- _ASCE_GM.1943_5622.0000866Uploaded bySérgio Bernardes
- EmfUploaded byLakshmiKoteswarama
- Hydraulics 1-2-3.docxUploaded byveeveegarcia_
- Rapid Detection AndSubsequent Isolation of Bioactive Constituents of Crude Plant ExtractsUploaded byRiana Maya Oktaviani
- Q ElectricityUploaded byvidhan tiwari
- Boardwork 2Uploaded byArjay
- Experiment 1 - Physics LabUploaded bysleepercar
- Ss Welding Euro InoxUploaded byessnelson
- ENGN.2070 Assignment 21 SolutionUploaded bysteven lopez
- Design of 10m span RCC slab culvertUploaded byD.V.Srinivasa Rao
- DCPRsUploaded byMiguel Pérez
- Coarse Aggregate Specific Gravity - Pavement InteractiveUploaded bySaurav Bhattacharjee
- Application of IEEE Std 519-1992 Harmonic LimitsUploaded byCristian Mardones
- Mosaphir Drisana M23bQ2-2014DrisanaMosaphirUploaded byGeorge Treacy
- AJACUploaded byMarko Zavbi
- important mucin bandUploaded byconcordsolutions
- Lecture 4 Compressible Flow.pptxUploaded byAllyssa Mae Firmalan
- HYSYSPROB2Uploaded bySalim Chohan
- Assignment-I.docxUploaded byamith gupta
- acidbase-equilibrium2014Uploaded byLissa Hannah
- DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF AN UV SPECTROPHOTOMETRIC METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF ALISKIREN IN TABLETS.pdfUploaded byNájla Kassab
- IFEM.Ch20Uploaded byvsbalint
- Elenin Comet: Interview JL. Galache PhD. Minor Planet Center, CambridgeUploaded bymarquillo727

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.