How to understand earthquake regulation 4.3.2.4

[Ismail Hakki Besler]

Re: How should we understand the 4.3.2.4 article of the earthquake code Let's summarize the definite items as follows: 1) 4.3.4.5 Items A14 and A15 For systems where high ductility level curtained and framed systems are used together. There is already a direct reference to this article. 2) Article 4.3.4.6 For all mixed systems because there is also a reference to this article here. These two items were already controlled in curtain-frame systems in a similar way in the 2007 regulation. With 75% and alphas, for both high ductility and mixed systems. The statement indicating that 4.3.2.4 will only be used in curtain systems is not clear. Let's try to understand. "In buildings with reinforced concrete curtain wall and/or steel braced frame" Let's rewrite this article excluding steel only for reinforced concrete buildings "In buildings with reinforced concrete sheared and steel braced frames" this sentence only concerns steel "In buildings with reinforced concrete sheared or steel braced frame" this sentence is used in steel and reinforced concrete We can write it twice as "Reinforced concrete curtain wall" or "Steel braced frame". This sentence also concerns steel. Therefore, in reinforced concrete structures, Article 4.3.2.4 must be related to "Reinforced concrete curtain wall" structures.

 

[siromar]

Re: How should we understand Article 4.3.2.4 of the Earthquake Code

Omer Bey, If we accept that it is as you understand it (I am not saying it is wrong, we are just discussing it) Mixed) or 4.3.4.5 (high) So you are saying: 1. We will ensure that the total overturning moments of the bulkheads are greater than 0.75 (if not, R and D will change) 2. Then the overturning moment of each wall &lt;1 We will look at the /3 condition 3. Then we will check the &gt;1/6 condition of the side curtains We will do the same logic for 4.3.4.5... 1. The total overturning moment of the curtain wall is 0.4 <M<0.75 şartına bakacağız sonra bu şart sağlamıyorsa R ve D değişecek vs..
2. Her bir perdede 1<3 şartına bakılacak
3. kenar perdede > The 1/6 condition will be considered. In both cases, if the 2 and 3 items are not met, 4/5 R will be used. Let&#39;s assume that the specification was written using a spelling language as you said (with precision... if it meant &quot;all&quot;, they would not hesitate to write there). So would I be wrong to ask this? Shouldn&#39;t it be said that &quot;Article 4.3.2.4 de will be complied with&quot;, which is also valid for clauses 4.3.4.5 and 4.3.4.6 and is much more essential than the expression &quot;all&quot;? I understand you, it&#39;s on the safer side, if you want, you can apply this to every pitch in every structure regardless of DTS, but you will apply it on every pitch in every system in DTS1-2, no matter what the carrier system is[/ u]&quot; is a forced comment in my opinion... In conclusion, Mr. Ömer, I am not convinced and I still maintain my opinion on this article and I think it only applies to curtained systems .. Best regards...

Of course, the purpose is to argue, but let&#39;s look at the event. If that item was understood as &quot;fully curtained&quot; as you said, there would not be one &quot;completely curtained&quot; building in Turkey. Whoever throws a 30x60 column in an unnecessary place in the project is exempt from this article. Anyhow, its structure will no longer be &quot;fully veiled&quot;. I&#39;m starting with the purpose of the article. The regulation that has no penalty for torsion irregularity??? It is questionable why he imposed such a serious penalty with this article. But I think the &quot;all veiled&quot; comment creates a logic error in this article. While the same regulation (in surface foundations) required the Ground Structure Interaction (superstructure interaction with the language of the program) for C and D groups in TDY2007. Didn&#39;t he say by this regulation (16C.1.2) it can be neglected? This regulation also brought the horizontal reinforcement arrangement of the wall, which is very difficult to implement on-site - the necessity of overlapping the middle section of the column (which is still mandatory in the column, why is it not on the curtain?). There will certainly be many other issues to be discussed as well - it will remain in force for 10 years anyway.

 

[Mirza]

Re: How should we understand Article 4.3.2.4 of the Earthquake Code

I set out from the purpose of the article. The regulation that has no penalty for torsion irregularity??? It is questionable why he imposed such a serious penalty with this article. But I think the &quot;wholly veiled&quot; comment causes a logical error in this article

Your starting point is correct, and the conclusion you arrive at, however logical, only connects your approach to your project, in my opinion... by deferring the economy, you will make a project on the safer side.. that is. You can say that I will provide the article 4.3.2.4 about curtains in every project, and I will not even look at what DTS and BYS are while doing this... the regulation does not limit you in this regard.

Whoever throws a 30x60 column in an unnecessary place in the project is exempt from this article. It won&#39;t be &quot;fully curtained&quot; anyway.

You&#39;re right, it would be exempt and it was happening... remember, when you put 1 curtain in TDY 2007 when your entire building was columnar, you would decrease the R coefficient from 8 to 7... Why ? 1 curtain 8/7 was increasing your earthquake loads by approximately 14%... Didn&#39;t those who prepared the specification realize this situation? Isn&#39;t it strange? It could also be the opposite... When you increase the ductility of your columns in the mixed system, R = 6 could go up to 7 (-16%)... The specification gives us limit values, you can not accept these limit values as sufficient and you can increase them, it&#39;s okay but you can&#39;t decrease them.. If the interpretation I took from this article is correct, (I&#39;m leaving a margin of caution) control mechanisms cannot say to us: you have to do 4/5R, but it would be safer if you did, it would be better etc[/ b] might say. The specification is binding for us. There is no upper limit to making the building safer, as you know, you can reduce your earthquake loads in your building if you want. This is completely the personal preference of the engineer. In 2007, the definition of a rigid basement floor could be made for both directions. I still don&#39;t understand why it was removed... imagine you are creating the basement of a building.. the front of the building is open from the opposite level and the other 3 facades are curtained, you will either tear a floor of the store to descend to the parking lot or it is logical not to make the basement curtain in one axis range from the side garden. . According to this specification, when we remove that curtain from there , you do not meet the condition of &quot;at least three sides are surrounded by curtains&quot; and the BYS changes accordingly. Let&#39;s move it a little further, for example, when the basement is accepted, Hn=69 m, that curtain will be transferred to the parking lot. When I opened it to enter, it became Hn=70+ and BYS 1. Get well soon, you do not have the ability to do the project, the direction is straight to the &quot;supervisor&quot;.. But as engineers, we know that not much has been lost from the rigidity of that floor. Although I still stand behind my opinion in article 4.3.2.4 in particular, I think that the enforcement of the regulation was fast in general. The trainings and seminars were superficial, and the solved examples were examples that have no real counterpart. Still, thanks to everyone who contributed.. The transition could have been extended a little longer and the infrastructure could have been better prepared.. By the way, it was very good that İsmail Bey broke the sentence by throwing a scalpel. good work, best regards...

 

[servany2]

Re: How to understand Earthquake Code Article 4.3.2.4

Mr. İsmail, I am aware that in the Regulation, the core curtains are defined as groups and the internal force is calculated at a single point, but if this is the case, let&#39;s assume that there is only one &quot;H&quot; shape in the building and there is a core in the center. In this case, article 4.3.2.4a will not be provided because there is only one curtain. If you look at it this way, the 4R/5 multiplier will come into play most of the time. It&#39;s a bit cruel. That&#39;s why I said...

Yes, quite ruthlessly. We talk to the teachers about this situation. The regulation clearly states that you can combine the curtain arms and get them together. .

Hello, Mr. İsmail, I think it&#39;s a good item. Although A1 irregularity has no sanction in the regulation, we all know the negative effects of torsion. The reason for the article is to eat the bread of elevator and stair curtains &quot;so to speak&quot; it was increasing the faS, now Mdev will increase it greatly) as well as to prevent (although it is called the core, these curtains are not always in the middle in the plan, sometimes they can be stuck to the right and left, and seriously pull the center of rigidity to themselves and move it away from the center of mass) torsion that may occur due to these masses. prevent disorder. I find it to be a well thought out article

imo confirming what you said from the manual, 4.3.2.4 refers to the case with A12 , A13 and non-beamed flooring.

 

[siromar]

Re: How to understand Earthquake code 4.3.2.4 article Hello, I haven&#39;t read the Imo handbook. However, it is obvious that the village that appears does not want a guide.

 

[Ismail Hakki Besler]

Re: How to understand the article 4.3.2.4 of the earthquake code Let me conclude the common opinion that emerged as a result of this extremely useful forum, as the moderator; A12 4.3.4.5 DON&#39;T 4.3.2.4 Should Do A13 4.3.4.5 DON&#39;T 4.3.2.4 Should Do A14 4.3.4.5 Should Do 4.3.4.6 [color=# FF0000]DON&#39;T[/color] 4.3.2.4 DON&#39;T A15 4.3.4.5 should be done 4.3.4.6 DON&#39;T 4.3.2.4 DON&#39;T All A2 4.3.4.5 DON&#39;T 4.3.4.6 Do 4.3.2.4 DON&#39;T All A3 4.3.4.5 DON&#39;T 4.3.4.6 DO NOT 4.3.2.4 DO NOT In other words, the systems to be applied (Must) [ b]4.3.4.5 : A14 A15 4.3.4.6 : All A2 4.3.2.4 : A12 A13 and non-beam slab systems[/b] 4.3.2.4 should also be done for the case where the columns are unscrewed in non-beam slab systems. Also, please do not write with long words when replying You do not need to add images. As in the table I created above, next to the carrier system code, comment the item number and SHOULD NOT. Many thanks for your contribution.

 

[MaFiAMaX]

Re: How to understand the 4.3.2.4 article of the earthquake code What this forum has contributed to us and to you is very valuable. Do not forget to take a backup often There are two different views: The first is the table that Mr. İsmail summarized. Second other opinion. I&#39;m also in favor of the second opinion. The only situation in which there is no agreement is already the article 4.3.2.4.

 

[2m proje]

Re: How to understand Earthquake code 4.3.2.4 article Hello; I also agree with the second opinion shared by Mr. Erhan. In support of this view, the 1st Example in the TBDY2018 examples book was solved as A14-A15 and the article 4.3.2.4 was applied. 3. Sample was dissolved as A12-A13 and item 4.3.2.4 was applied. Best regards.

 

[aozhan90]

Re: How should we understand the article 4.3.2.4 of the earthquake code We need to apply the article 4.3.4.6 to the whole A2 yes, but how will it be applied? What does the top allowed bys mean, for example, if the bys of our building is 6, if the allowed bys is 7, will we cancel the floors of the building? A direction that would affect the area of the project does not make much sense. It would seem more reasonable if he directly forced this condition to be met.

 

[MaFiAMaX]

Re: How should we understand the 4.3.2.4 article of the earthquake code

We need to apply the 4.3.4.6 article to the whole A2 yes, but how will it be applied? What does the top allowed bys mean, that is, for example, if the bys of our building is 6, if the permissible bys is 7, shall we cancel the floors of the building? A direction that will affect the area of the project does not make much sense. It would seem more reasonable if it directly forces this condition to be met.

If this condition is not met in article 4.3.4.6, a higher level It doesn&#39;t say that the BYS will be taken into account. If the walls take less than 75% of the total moment, it says that it will be solved according to A31[/b], as if there is no curtain, that is, it will be solved according to A31[/b].As you said, BYS&gt;= It happens 7. Of course, if you increase the screen ratio, there is no problem. In mixed systems, the 75% condition is reasonable and logical anyway.

 

[Mirza]

Re: How to understand the article 4.3.2.4 of the earthquake code ? By the way, I am attaching an image from Example 3.

 

[Mirza]

Re: How to understand the 4.3.2.4 article of the earthquake code Correction: I asked Mr. Ömer for the information I needed to ask from Mr. 2m Proje.

 

[inş.müh]

Re: How to understand the article 4.3.2.4 of the earthquake code Hello, I agree with the 1st opinion shared by Mr. Erhan. Also, I had the opportunity to examine the handbook of IMO, and this article was applied only in the building where the earthquake loads are fully covered by the shear walls.

 

[siromar]

Re: How should we understand the 4.3.2.4 article of the earthquake code Although I advocate the implementation of the 2nd group and 4.3.2.4 in DTS1 and DTS2 in all systems containing shears until the end

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(4.3.2.4 not implemented in the hybrid system example)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(4.3.2.4 applied on cork flooring. (although there are columns in the system) All kinds of cork flooring are subject to 4.3.2.4 due to the prediction that all earthquake loads are carried by the curtains in non-beamed floors) presentation by my friend abdullah karaçöp from the department. In short, Imo seminars favor the 1st group.

 

[Ismail Hakki Besler]

Re: How to understand Earthquake code 4.3.2.4 article The result from this forum, Alternative 1, looks like this.

Let me conclude the consensus that emerged as a result of this extremely useful forum as follows: A12 4.3.4.5 DON&#39;T 4.3.2.4 Do A13 4.3. 4.5 DON&#39;T 4.3.2.4 Do A14 4.3.4.5 Should Do 4.3.4.6 DON&#39;T 4.3.2.4 DON&#39;T A15 4.3.4.5 should be done 4.3.4.6 DON&#39;T 4.3.2.4 DON&#39;T All A2 4.3.4.5 DON&#39;T 4.3. 4.6 Should 4.3.2.4 DON&#39;T All A3 4.3.4.5 DON&#39;T 4.3.4.6 DON&#39;T 4.3.2.4 [ color=#FF0000]SHOULD[/color] In other words, the systems to be applied (Must) 4.3.4.5 : A14 A15 4.3.4.6 : All A2 4.3.2.4 : A12 A13 and without beam tiled systems 4.3.2.4 should also be done for the case where the columns are unscrewed in non-beam tiled systems [/quot] to]

 

[Medeniyetmuhendisi]

Re: How should we understand the 4.3.2.4 article of the earthquake code As a result, is it necessary to understand the article 4.3.2.4 for structures that are completely curtain walled? I read about this subject on the internet and in different forums, and they wrote that programs misunderstood this subject and that this article should normally be applied in buildings with curtains. It is difficult to reach a definite conclusion, so I think we can draw a clear conclusion from imo&#39;s seminars and booklet by looking at the article 4.3.2.4.

 

[unver]

Re: How to understand the article 4.3.2.4 of the earthquake code My interpretation is also alternative 1 Ünver ÖZCAN

 

[ilkem]

Re: How to understand Earthquake code 4.3.2.4 article Hello; I think that 4.3.2.4 should be applied in A12, A13, A32 systems (DTS=1,1a,2,2a).(Alternative 1) A14,A15 (4.3.4.5) , All A2 (4.3.4.6) , A33 (4.3) .4.7) related overturning moment checks should be done. My opinion that 4.3.2.4 should be applied in all curtain wall systems: In case all earthquake loads are met with shear walls, stiffness will increase-ductility decrease-period will decrease, so earthquake loads will increase. Since the ductility will decrease, the curtains must work effectively. (If the ductility is less, the stiffness must be higher). The curtains that will provide the rigidity must be homogeneous within the structure-their distribution must be uniform- If this is not the case, the regulation says. When R decreases, earthquake loads will increase. I think that&#39;s the goal. If we say why this article should not be applied in Curtain+Frame construction: Since the ductility is higher in curtain+framed structure than in pure curtain system, I think that reducing R (if the curtains are not homogeneous of course) would penalize the frames. (It is known that beams are more ductile than columns and columns are more ductile than curtains). In any case, the overturning moment condition for curtain wall+frame systems is required in the relevant articles. I do not think that Article 4.3.2.4 is intended to indirectly penalize irregularity A1. In case of A1 irregularity, the floor torsion moments are already acted on the floor as shear force (shear force calculated from shear+torsion moments from horizontal loads)

 

[Ismail Hakki Besler]

Re: How to understand the article 4.3.2.4 of the earthquake code This article also covers steel structures. For C12 and C13, it is stated that the full extent of the earthquake effects are carried by steel cross framed systems. So here, steel crossed frame corresponds to a system definition and curtain systems in reinforced concrete. C14 and C15 also mentioned frame+cross frame.

 

[Mirza]

Re: How to understand the article 4.3.2.4 of the earthquake code Common definition: elements to which moments are transferred ba. If the wall/steel is cross, this clause is applied, if not (if the columns also transmit moment), it is not applied. This clause is also applied for C12 C13. Sent from my SM-N920C using Tapatalk