|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
for_prof_arc at hotmai... Guest
|
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 12:45 pm Post subject: Answers from the Moderator to questions raised during the e |
|
|
I disagree with the comments in the answer to my question.
I have a very long experience in analysis of RCC & Steel Buildings. I have also carried out experimental studies on actual structures.
There is no doublt in my mind that the punitive clause to anchor to high Base Shear forces are totally unwarrented for Steel Structures. Whatever forces are determined by analysis should be used in design and empirical formula which have no relevance to steel structures should not be used. Further, in India, Steel Structures would be mainly for construction in Industrial Buildings.
I have not got any reaction to my comments on the effective Live Load of Mass attached to the Crane.
ARC
Quote: | ************************************************* SEFI e-Conference on draft revision of IS:800, October 06 to November 07,
| 2003
Quote: | ************************************************* Question: I feel that IS: 800 should have explicit provisions for
| earthquake effects as IS: 1893 is primarily meant for RCC structures. In particular, the punitive clauses of IS: 1893 should not be applied to steel structures. The empirical formulae for fundamental period [which is used for defining minimum base shear] are NOT applicable to steel structures. The modeling of steel structures could be far more accurate than RCC structure as the properties of section [EA, EI, GJ] can be accurately determined. Further, it is likely that steel structures would be "an engineered construction" and therefore let the forces as obtained from analysis be taken for design without imposing arbitrary penalties. There is also a case for larger reduction factors for steel structures as compared to concrete construction!! The reduction factor of 5 is mostly unachievable in RCC whereas it could be achieved in steel. Hence to have overall effective seismic factor [a combination of Z, I, R, T]!
Quote: | of the same order, R for steel structure could be larger, say, 5 & 6
| instead of 4 & 5. - A.R Chandrasekaran
Quote: | Ans: Section 12 is giving explicit provision for design of steel
| structures to resist earthquake effect. However, IS: 800 cannot override the provisions given in IS: 1893. The empirical formula address uncertainties in modeling such as stiffness of infills and is applicable to steel structures also.
Posted via Email |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
|