几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量 - 查看单个帖子

ibc 2003 question again
i wanted to get some feedback about what others are doing in seismic design. i typically design structures for industrial applications, mostly for material handling of bulk materials. typically we are in low seismic regions (c or less) and utilize the elfp and systems not specifically designed for seismic resistance. my question comes as follows. my boss feels that when you are allowed to not specifically detail the structure for seismic resistance then you just calculate the seismic load in a brace, etc. based on equation 16-50 and 16-51 and design the connection basically like you would any old connection. he feels that only you are using the more stringent requirements and are detailing the structure for seismic resistance that you must then consider eq 16-19 & 16-20. i guess i always just kind of accepted this as true and moved on designing as he instructed me to do. it just so happens that i have began studying for my p.e. exam and was looking into some of these things more closely. (basicaly i am reading the code page by page.) i guess after reading through it and looking at alan williams book on wind and seismic engineering i am concerned that you must not always design the brace for the special load combinations. i hope my question has not confused everybody, but i would just like to see a little feedback as to what others feel is correct.
thanks for your time as always!
aggman,
this is another part of the code that i'm not to sure about. section 1605.4 for "special seismic load combinations" and section 1617.1.1.2 "maximum seismic load effect em" are not general requirements but needed only when specifically called for in a certain part of the code. and i'm not remebering what those are right now.
a relavant thread is, and maybe you have already seen this, is ...
thanks for the thread. it seems to me like you need a ph.d in code reading just to interprete when you have to design something a certain way or not.
from aggieyanks post of yesterday i see the final hearings for the ibc 2006 are next month. this will be another $100 and i'm still trying to understand the 2003 version.

2009-09-09, 06:43 PM	#1
huangyhg 超级版主注册日期: 04-03 帖子: 18592 精华: 36 现金: 249466 标准币资产: 1080358888 标准币	ibc 2003 question again ibc 2003 question again i wanted to get some feedback about what others are doing in seismic design. i typically design structures for industrial applications, mostly for material handling of bulk materials. typically we are in low seismic regions (c or less) and utilize the elfp and systems not specifically designed for seismic resistance. my question comes as follows. my boss feels that when you are allowed to not specifically detail the structure for seismic resistance then you just calculate the seismic load in a brace, etc. based on equation 16-50 and 16-51 and design the connection basically like you would any old connection. he feels that only you are using the more stringent requirements and are detailing the structure for seismic resistance that you must then consider eq 16-19 & 16-20. i guess i always just kind of accepted this as true and moved on designing as he instructed me to do. it just so happens that i have began studying for my p.e. exam and was looking into some of these things more closely. (basicaly i am reading the code page by page.) i guess after reading through it and looking at alan williams book on wind and seismic engineering i am concerned that you must not always design the brace for the special load combinations. i hope my question has not confused everybody, but i would just like to see a little feedback as to what others feel is correct. thanks for your time as always! aggman, this is another part of the code that i'm not to sure about. section 1605.4 for "special seismic load combinations" and section 1617.1.1.2 "maximum seismic load effect em" are not general requirements but needed only when specifically called for in a certain part of the code. and i'm not remebering what those are right now. a relavant thread is, and maybe you have already seen this, is ... thanks for the thread. it seems to me like you need a ph.d in code reading just to interprete when you have to design something a certain way or not. from aggieyanks post of yesterday i see the final hearings for the ibc 2006 are next month. this will be another $100 and i'm still trying to understand the 2003 version. __________________ 借用达朗贝尔的名言：前进吧，你会得到信心! [url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]