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  


返回   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 » 三维空间:产品设计或CAX软件使用 » CAD设计 » 产品功能分析
用户名
密码
注册 帮助 会员 日历 银行 搜索 今日新帖 标记论坛为已读


回复
 
主题工具 搜索本主题 显示模式
旧 2009-09-15, 11:24 AM   #1
huangyhg
超级版主
 
huangyhg的头像
 
注册日期: 04-03
帖子: 18592
精华: 36
现金: 249466 标准币
资产: 1080358888 标准币
huangyhg 向着好的方向发展
默认 paring down sesmic loads

paring down sesmic loads
at my current place of employment when there is a problem with the seismic loads they like to reduce the dead loads to "what is actual there".
example:
we design a roof for a gravity dead load of 24psf.
deck - 3 psf
joist - 6 psf
roofing - 10 psf
mep - 5 psf
then we design the weight for seismic using a dead load of 20 psf
deck - 2 psf
joist - 5 psf
roofing - 8 psf
mep - 5 psf
we use the logic that the second set of loads are more acurate becasue they more closely reflect what is really there. we then proceed to put the 24 psf dead load on our plans as what we design for, but have the seismic load really correspond to less.
i don't feel this is correct. is this type of thing standard practice? is there a code reference (ibc) that tells me this is or is not allowed?

i have done that.
the one thing to worry about is re-roofing, new ceiling, new hvac units etc.
our local code enforcement buys off on it.
is it right or more accurate - kind of an engineering judgement.
i beleive the code allows you to use actaul weights if you can define them. most people pick conservative loads for gravity - i do. but when it comes to seismic - i often use actaul based on the assumption the really big one will never hit. maybe not the greatest decision.
we do the same thing. for instance in warehouse design it is common to add 3-4 psf of fire sprinkler load into the gravity design for bar joists so that the sprinkler trunk lines (3" pipes) can be hung just about anywhere. if you had a 100,000 sf warehouse this would mean a mass of 300,000 lbs. more accurately a 3" pipe at 30 ft or so should give you a mass of around 100,000 lbs. gives you flexibility in gravity design without penalizing your seismic design.
this what is called "sharpening your pencil". using more accurate values for assumed loadings and is done only when the first assumption of load values gives unworkable stress. if the first assumption works, then stop designing! foolish to spend 150 dollars worth of engineering to save 125 dollars worth of material unless you plan to manufacture a few thousand of this design.
__________________
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]
huangyhg离线中   回复时引用此帖
GDT自动化论坛(仅游客可见)
回复


主题工具 搜索本主题
搜索本主题:

高级搜索
显示模式

发帖规则
不可以发表新主题
不可以回复主题
不可以上传附件
不可以编辑您的帖子

vB 代码开启
[IMG]代码开启
HTML代码关闭

相似的主题
主题 主题发起者 论坛 回复 最后发表
new york 2007 code snow loads - reduced huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-10 04:23 PM
intl bldg code wind loads huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 09:19 PM
fea on conrete slab - use real loads or factored loads huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 11:24 AM
equivalent frame for rc column design loads huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-08 10:48 PM
are asce 7-02 wind loads ultimate or service level huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 12:46 PM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 12:08 PM.


于2004年创办,几何尺寸与公差论坛"致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T | GPS研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量"。免责声明:论坛严禁发布色情反动言论及有关违反国家法律法规内容!情节严重者提供其IP,并配合相关部门进行严厉查处,若內容有涉及侵权,请立即联系我们QQ:44671734。注:此论坛须管理员验证方可发帖。
沪ICP备06057009号-2
更多