www.sefindia.org

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FORUM OF INDIA [SEFI]

 Forum SubscriptionsSubscriptions DigestDigest Preferences   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister FAQSecurity Tips FAQDonate
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log in to websiteLog in to websiteLog in to websiteLog in to forum 
Warning: Make sure you scan the downloaded attachment with updated antivirus tools  before opening them. They may contain viruses.
Use online scanners
here and here to upload downloaded attachment to check for safety.

Clause 7.9.2 of IS:1893

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> E-Conference 21st August 2004
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rudra Nevatia
...
...


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 211

PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 6:17 am    Post subject: Clause 7.9.2 of IS:1893 Reply with quote

It is proposed to change Clause 7.9.2 of IS:1893 which presently reads as
follows:

The design eccentricity, edi to be used at floor i shall be taken as:

edi = 1.5esi + 0.05bi  or
esi - 0.05bi

whichever of these gives the more severe effect in the shear of any frame

where:

esi = Static eccentricity at floor i defined as the distance between centre of
mass and centre of rigidity, and

bi  = Floor plan dimension of floor i, perpendicular to the direction of force


NOTE -  The factor 1.5 represents dynamic amplification factor, while the
factor 0.05 represents the extent of accidental eccentricity


The proposed change envisages changing factor 1.5 to 1.0 and factor 0.05 to
0.1.

My understanding of the clause in its existing form is as follows. Please
correct me if I am wrong.

In its general form the expresion for edi should read:

edi = A*esi + B*bi

Factor A accounts for possible coupling of torsional and lateral modes of
vibration and depends on the ratio of frequencies in the two modes. As this
ratio approaches 1, resonance will set in. Hence a multiplier of 1.5 on esi.
FEMA relates factor A to the extent of torsion irregularity and in extreme
case, this factor can reach up to 3!

Factor B accounts for possible variation of ground motion along the width
of building. Obviously, the factor can take a positive or negative value.

Two extreme cases are possible:

1. Torsional coupling occurs and accidental eccentricity is in the same
direction as the static eccentricty which is reflected by the first
equation of the present clause

2. Torsional coupling does not occur and the static eccentricty is in the
direction opposite to the static eccentricty which is what the second
part of the equation implies.

The proposed change would wrongly

- ignore the effect of coupling of lateral and torsional modes

- give benefit of reduction in torsional shear


May I therefore suggest that the clause be retained as it is.

Rudra Nevatia




          
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alpa_sheth at vsnl.com
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:27 am    Post subject: Clause 7.9.2 of IS:1893 Reply with quote

Dear All,
I too have concerns about the proposed revision to Clause 7.9.2 of IS:1893
but for different reasons:
I feel that the revision from 0.05 to 0.1 bi unnecessarily and perhaps
unconsciously punishes perfectly symmetrical structures.
ASCE 7-02 also has min torsional design mom based on actual torsion (Mt) +
that caused due to displacement of mass by distance of 5% of dimension of
structure perpendicular to direction of seismic force (Mta). In higher
seismic zones, Mta is to be multiplied by a factor of        ((max
displacement/(1.2* avg displacement)) ^2.
Thus for a perfectly symmetrical structure,  where max displacement = avg
displacement, Mta would be based on eccentricity of 5%  *  (1/1.2)^2= 0.69
or very roughly 3.5% eccentricity.
On the other hand, the proposed revision to IS 1893 will increase the
accidental torsion from 5% bi to 10% bi for perfectly symmetrical structures

Regards,
Alpa
----- Original Message -----
From: <rudra_nevatia@yahoo.com>
To: <alpa_sheth@vsnl.com>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 11:33 AM
Subject: [Econf] Clause 7.9.2 of IS:1893


Quote:
*************************************************
SEFI e-Conference on Proposed Revisions to IS:1893 & IS:13920 from
September 20 to 25, 2004
Quote:
*************************************************

It is proposed to change Clause 7.9.2 of IS:1893 which presently reads as
follows:

The design eccentricity, edi to be used at floor i shall be taken as:

edi = 1.5esi + 0.05bi  or
esi - 0.05bi

whichever of these gives the more severe effect in the shear of any frame

where:

esi = Static eccentricity at floor i defined as the distance between
centre of
Quote:
mass and centre of rigidity, and

bi  = Floor plan dimension of floor i, perpendicular to the direction of
force
Quote:


NOTE -  The factor 1.5 represents dynamic amplification factor, while the
factor 0.05 represents the extent of accidental eccentricity


The proposed change envisages changing factor 1.5 to 1.0 and factor 0.05
to
Quote:
0.1.

My understanding of the clause in its existing form is as follows. Please
correct me if I am wrong.

In its general form the expresion for edi should read:

edi = A*esi + B*bi

Factor A accounts for possible coupling of torsional and lateral modes of
vibration and depends on the ratio of frequencies in the two modes. As
this
Quote:
ratio approaches 1, resonance will set in. Hence a multiplier of 1.5 on
esi.
Quote:
FEMA relates factor A to the extent of torsion irregularity and in extreme
case, this factor can reach up to 3!

Factor B accounts for possible variation of ground motion along the width
of building. Obviously, the factor can take a positive or negative value.

Two extreme cases are possible:

1. Torsional coupling occurs and accidental eccentricity is in the same
direction as the static eccentricty which is reflected by the first
equation of the present clause

2. Torsional coupling does not occur and the static eccentricty is in the
direction opposite to the static eccentricty which is what the second
part of the equation implies.

The proposed change would wrongly

- ignore the effect of coupling of lateral and torsional modes

- give benefit of reduction in torsional shear


May I therefore suggest that the clause be retained as it is.

Rudra Nevatia





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail




*******************************************
The views, opinions, analyses and assessments contained herein do not
necessarily reflect the views of SEFI. Also SEFI does not guarantee the
accuracy of the data included in the proceedings of this e-conference and
accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use.
Quote:
*******************************************
========powered by Reach1to1 Office Everywhere
(http://www.reach1to1.com)======
Quote:


Posted via Email
Back to top
mc.upadhyay1
...
...


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 134

PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:58 am    Post subject: Clause 7.9.2 of IS:1893 Reply with quote





Hello Madam Alpa

you yourself (being administrator of SEFI) did not follow the following
dont's

* Please delete the message you are responding to from the body of your
email so as to limit the size of the email.

Regards

Mukesh Upadhyay

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alpa_sheth at vsnl.com
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:11 am    Post subject: Clause 7.9.2 of IS:1893 Reply with quote

Yes,  I agree and plead guilty Smile)))
But I think what we really mean is that if there is a loooong thread of
discussion on a topic we should not carry all of the thread in the reply so
as to limit email size. Retaining the most recent email on the topic in the
reply  is desirable so that  people  know the reference of the reply.
Cheers,
Alpa

Posted via Email
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> E-Conference 21st August 2004 All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 

 
Jump to:  
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


© 2003, 2008 SEFINDIA, Indian Domain Registration
Publishing or acceptance of an advertisement is neither a guarantee nor endorsement of the advertiser's product or service. advertisement policy