6.0054 R coefficient problem

S

siromar

New Member
Hn = 15m, that is, less than 25 m and ductile level is normal in my beam system, with this version, I received an incorrect warning of alphas <0.75 ductility level, there is only an elevator curtain in the system, I think there is a problem in this issue.
 
The ductility level was allowed up to 25 meters in normal frame + curtain wall structures in the 1997 regulation. (Item 6.5.3.2) With the 2007 revision, the 0.75 alfas control became independent of the building height, in the 6.0054 version, we made a change for the control according to the 2007 regulation, taking this difference into account. (See 2007 regulation equivalent clause 2.5.3.1). That is, regardless of the building height, alphas > 0.75 condition is required for curtain wall systems with normal ductility level. The permission for 25 meters in the 2007 regulation is item 2.5.1.6 (b), but it only concerns systems with normal ductility level consisting of frames, since you have elevator curtains in your project, the program control is done by considering item 2.5.3.1.
 
I think I have a misunderstanding or misinterpretation here. Hn<= 25m item 2.5.1.6 (b) In the case of the normal system (this is 13m for the hollow cassette, without beams), the normal altar, the system consisting of only frames without curtains is allowed, while a system with curtains is quite allowed. item 2.5.3. or, when H will exceed 25 m and you will use normal ductility, you should cast a curtain with normal ductility with alphas>=0.75, the regulation says. I think this is your mistake about R in this update. With this update, you are saying that if there is a curtain in the system, you cannot choose a normal altar building (you can choose mixed or high), which makes this comment already in table 2.5. If there was such a logic, there would not have been an expression such as the ductile is normal and R=4 is taken in the section where the column and curtains are together, in the table 2.5, I would like you to fix this error in this update, good work.
 
Hello, a user of ours requested this warning based on 2.5.3.1. Of course, you know this item too.. "2.5.3.1: In case of using shear walls with normal ductility level in the structural system, the sum of the shear forces obtained at the base of the walls according to the earthquake loads in each earthquake direction is 75 percent of the total shear force occurring at the base for the whole building. there will be more.” In my personal opinion, this situation was either overlooked in the regulation or it was intended to be written as a sanction at the top. Because the article 2.5.3.1 was written as a completely separate article, not as a back-condition of another article, as if it were tied to a condition from the top... Of course, your reaction is also reasonable ... I think it would be better to give a warning for our users who do not examine the subject in depth . After all, the engineer can take the initiative in case of warning and may ignore it if he/she wishes... If there is no warning, the engineer may not have a chance to take the initiative... After all, you are our users who shape the program.. Good work...
 
The spirit of the 97 regulation is ductility level and high ductility level structure production. The regulation directs you to design a structure with a high level of ductility. If you want to design a system with a normal ductility level, you can do this, but you have to submit to the sanctions of the regulation. This is how I perceive this item. I think that normal ductile structures will be banned completely in future renewals of earthquake regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top