Earthquake Regulation article 4.3.4.6

S

servany2

New Member
hello, if the tipping moment in the article 4.3.4.6 is less than 75%, can we benefit from this article if our hollow block structure satisfies this condition in the section where it is said that the maximum allowed bys will be taken into account by taking R=4 D=2.5 with limited ductility level, because in another article (4.3.4.3) It is said that the structures with hollow floor tiles will be mixed, so if we meet the condition in the second part of 4.3.4.6, our hollow structure will still be considered mixed by changing the r and d coefficients, can you help me about this issue?
 
Re: Earthquake Code 4.3.4.6 article 4.3.4.6 in our reports. it states that limited ductile must be dissolved in cases where it is not provided. The official in the Chamber of Engineers agrees. But everything can be understood from the sentence in the regulation. It's a vague sentence. If we ask Mr. Ismail to clarify this matter thoroughly.
 
Re: Earthquake Code 4.3.4.6 article Hello, Prof. Dr. Mehmet Nuray Aydınoğlu's information regarding the hollow blocks is attached.
 
Re: Article 4.3.4.6 of the Earthquake Regulation What we call the regulation is up to our interpretations, although they should be precise and clear, they can't even explain the sentences they wrote with confidence, it's so obvious that we don't have an original regulation, it's just a show, a lot of things happening in this country as
 
Re: Earthquake Code article 4.3.4.6 In this case, is it possible to meet both regulations at the same time? (4.2.3.4 and 4.3.4.6) This seems unlikely. The regulation has already dropped R. Also 4.2.3.4. I think it is not necessary to make R=4 with the control.
 
Re: Earthquake Code article 4.3.4.6 If the building walls do not meet the 0.75 M0 (Equivalent 4.3) condition, delete all the walls (including the core walls) in the building. Otherwise; In order to load all the earthquake effects on the columns, both ends of the walls will be unscrewed, a two-stage calculation will be made .... etc. It's like a two-stage calculation for cork floors... (curtains are hinged) However, there is no explanation about this, like one of the articles that will go to revision. Also, is there a typo in the conclusion part of Nuray's explanation? do i misunderstand? Shouldn't it be (BYS=<6)?
 
Re: Earthquake Code Article 4.3.4.6
"Mirza":29wdm896" said:
If the structural walls do not meet the 0.75 M0 (Equivalent 4.3) requirement, delete all the walls (including the core walls) in the building[/ u]. Otherwise, both ends of the walls will be unscrewed to load all the earthquake effects on the columns, a two-stage calculation will be made.... etc. Similar to the two-stage calculation for cork floors... (curtains are hinged) However, there is no explanation on this subject no, it's like one of the articles that will go to revision. Also, is there a typo in the conclusion part of Nuray Hodja's explanation, am I misunderstanding? (BYS=<6) shouldn't it be?
Click to expand...
as you say bys uppercase and lowercase sign will change or must be usable.
 
Re: Earthquake Code 4.3.4.6 article
"Mirza":wz097ain" said:
Also, is there a typo in the conclusion part of Nuray's statement? Am I misunderstanding? (BYS=< 6) Shouldn't it be ?
Click to expand...
No, there isn't a typo. The BYS limit allowed for A23 and A24 type buildings, namely curtain+frame hollow blocks, is BYS>=6. That is, when Mdev>0.75 is provided We can do A23 and A24 and the BMS limit this allows is LMS>=6.
 
Re: Earthquake Code Article 4.3.4.6 In Nuray Hodja's statement, there are contradictory statements when examining the articles of the regulation on geared flooring systems. Let's leave the 'predictions' of those who wrote the regulation aside and look at what is understood from the regulation written by them. We have to look at what is understood from the text. If what we understand does not coincide with their 'predictions', they should have written their 'foresight' in a more descriptive and simple way, not by making such a statement. If we didn't do it like that. Now let's see what is written in the regulation. If it does not contain pitch, that is, BYS>=7 (R=4 D=2.5) in A31 DTS=3,4 CAN BE MADE. If SDY includes pitch, A23,A24 TopMdev>=0.75 Mo If DTS=1,2,3,4 in DTS>= 6 (R=5-6 ; D=2,5) CAN BE DONE If TopMdev>=0.75 Mo cannot be achieved, Ductility will still be mixed, R,D, BYS of A31 will be considered (A31's R=4 , D=2.5 , BYS> =7 ) R is reduced, height is limited. (this comes out from the underlined expression) It does not mean that the ductility level will be limited. If it was said that the 'CONCLUSION' of Nuray Hoca's explanation cannot be used for buildings with DTS=1.2 and BYS=6 (not BYS>=) in a , OK (can also be used for BYS=7.8) A23 and A24 for BYS=6 In order for it to be used, the condition TopMdev>=0.75 Mo must be met. It can be used in buildings with A23,A24 BYS=7,8 even if TopMdev<0.75 Mo. In short, this is evident from the last paragraph of 4.3.4.6. R,D, BYS is changing. It is not the ductility level. In case TopMdev>=0.75 Mo condition is not met, it was foreseen for A21,A22 to consider A31's R,D, BYS, but not for A23,A24. Well, what would happen if you could write this in one sentence?
 
Re: Earthquake Regulation article 4.3.4.6 The section you underlined in article 4.3.4.6 clearly states it. When it is less than 75%, it says from Table 4.1 that the ductility level is met in limited frames. I don't understand what you are arguing about. If you have a mixed system, the overturning moment will be more than 75%, otherwise it says limited acceptance.
 
Re: Earthquake Code article 4.3.4.6
"saridurmus":2oux2zwd" said:
The section you underlined in article 4.3.4.6 clearly states. When it is less than 75%, it says from Table 4.1 that the ductility level is met in limited frames . I don't understand what you are discussing about this. If you have a mixed system, the overturning moment will be more than 75%, otherwise it says limited acceptance.
Click to expand...
We couldn't meet the 75% condition, we came to A31.. Does A31 say that the columns should absorb all the earthquake effects? In this case, shouldn't it lead to a two-stage calculation as in cork floors? If we are not going to do two-stage calculations, how will you transfer all the earthquake effects to the columns without accepting the shears as upper/bottom hinged in one step? Etc. etc. We are discussing these, if you want to join, please reply and enlighten us a bit. I suggest you be more patient with us, obviously we are not understanding as easily as you, we are discussing Regards... Sent from my SM-N920C using Tapatalk
 
Re: Article 4.3.4.6 of Earthquake Code
"saridurmus":zki9nnhu" said:
The section you underlined in article 4.3.4.6 clearly states. When it is less than 75%, it says from Table 4.1 that it is met in frames with limited ductility . I don't understand what you are arguing about. If you have a mixed system, the overturning moment will be more than 75%, otherwise it says limited acceptance.
Click to expand...
According to you, he may be saying it openly. I wrote what I understood like everyone else, not to convince anyone.
 
Friends, there is no need to make a polemic, while reading the relevant article, just focus on what you are reading without thinking about anything else, I do not underestimate anyone, but this issue has turned into a GS - FB discussion. While reading the item 4.3.4.3, read the word hollow as if there is no curtain, what it says in the gear flooring, if it does not contain curtains, use limited carrier systems (A31, B31, C31), if there is a curtain system, analyze as a mixed system of ductility level (A2, B2, C2) says. First decide on this, then fulfill the requirements of which class you want to solve. That's what I mean, not to insult any of you. You are an engineer, not a lawyer, you will find solutions, not a problem. I wish everyone good work.
 
The general logic of mixed systems is as follows; it gives you the privilege of calculating limited ductility in your columns and beams when you provide some important conditions in the shears and general behavior of the building. If these conditions are not met, the ductility level for curtains also directs or prohibits calculations according to limited conditions. Rather than discussing whether it will be A31 or A33, it is necessary to focus on what will be R, what will be D and what will be the BYS, and how can I easily meet this 75 condition. It is obvious that R=4, D=2 or 2.5. It can be used for systems with limited ductility level, DMS 6, 7 and 8. The issue turns around and comes to the issue of how many floors we can make at most in areas with hollow filler systems DTS 1 1a 2 2a. Nuray teacher approaches the issue conservatively and says don't make these systems higher than 10.5 meters and buy R=4 D=2.5. If we understand this article in a different way, not that way; again for the same DTS, we can take R=4 D=2 and make it 17.5 meters high. In other words, it can be done twice as much, and in terms of cutting forces (2/2.5) we are comfortable with the system. My personal opinion is to take precautions to meet the 0.75 condition. If you group the curtains in such structures and make polygon curtains (which you should do anyway), you can exceed this material very easily by increasing the moment carrying capacity. In addition, if you make the curtain as a hollow curtain and meet the tie beam commitment condition, you will not have to deal with them at all. The real problem is not this item. You satisfy the 0.75 condition. But here, 0.75 comes to my business, while 4.3.2.4 is giving me trouble. Here he says that the moment of a single curtain cannot be greater than 1/3 of the total moment. And if it doesn't, it redirects to 4/5R. In this case, even if I meet the gap curtain condition, I have to get R=4.8. If I use a gapless screen, I can get R=4 and solve the ductility level hash. My only advantage in this case is my ductility level hashing.
 
Mr. saridurmus, as you know, a solution cannot be produced without asking questions and identifying problems. (your lawyer/engineer metaphor is not very appropriate)
... First decide on this, then fulfill the requirements of which class you want to solve.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your suggestions, but be sure that all of your colleagues discussing in this forum are valuable and valuable to each other. They did what you suggested at the point of executing the solution algorithm, but they encountered problems and when it was difficult to reach the authors of the Regulation, they needed to ask/investigate/research in the forum as the closest source. (If we make this pre-acceptance and follow the current forum, we will show a more correct approach) By closing this chapter, not to be opened here, to come to the main topic: Friends, I tried to gather the problems on an example clearly and simply. If not provided, choose the appropriate R/D and BYS in A3. If there is only column A31, only curtain A32, if column+wall use A33 R/D/BYS"[/b If we take it as ], there is no problem. Our system is mixed again, only R/D/BYS has changed. Mr. İsmail, I agree with what you said, although Nuray Hodja's comment causes confusion in understanding this article, the main problem is in article 4.3.2.4. In any case, the program performs 4.3.2.4 checks in the current version. There are 2 opinions on the article, it would be appropriate to make this control optional in the next versions of the program, according to the existing comments. Because, according to my opinion, 4.3.2.4 control is only for "the situation where all the earthquake effects are covered by curtains". As Mr. lozhan pointed out in the forum below, the Handbook of Practical Examples also proves our approach.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
good work, best regards...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top