huangyhg

asce 7 code question
i am trying to determine if a building is classified as rigid or flexable for the wind gust factor in the asce 7-02. it states that if the fundamental frequency is greater than or equal to 1 hz, then it is rigid.
i have never determined the fundamental frequency before, does everyone do this everytime? or are 99% of the buildings in 1 class or the other, and it is only in certain cases do you have check this?
fyi i am doing an analysis of a pre-engineered building.
thanks in advance for everyones help
find a job or post a job opening
i never think about it and use the .85 allowed.
i'm with jedclampett. but--i have often wondered if i am correct. i have no idea if all these buildings i work on are rigid or flexible. i can't imagine calculating the fundamental frequency for each project. not enough time or budget!
daveatkins
i found in the commentary that it states if a building height/lenght < 4 then it is rigid as a general guide.
it's not hard to calculate the frequency. the earthquake provisions in chapter 9 give equations for the approximate fundamental period of the building. the natural frequency is just the inverse of the period.
i wouldn't use the earthquake equations to find the period. the assumed damping used in deriving those will not be the same as for wind effects, so you will be off.
there are equations to approximate the natural frequency for wind effects in the commentary to chapter 6 of asce 7-05 - see pages 293-294 equations c6-14 etc.
interesting...
that means that about 99% of all the structures i have ever worked on were rigid as "t" is generally in the range of .2 to .3, and the inverse is greater than 1.
that being said, then how could you logically ever have a "flexible" diaphragm condition with a "rigid" structure?
mike mccann
mccann engineering
i believe (someone please correct me if i am wrong) that you can have a flexible diaphragm with a rigid structure. the distinction lies somewhere in the ratio of diaphragm deflection to story drift.
structural eit:
i'm playing semantics here.
nevertheless, i thought it an interesting contradiction. in that rigidity is the inverse of deflection, and being flexible is just over the fence of being rigid, they are both deflection related. so, how can you logically have a flexible diaphragm, but have the overall structure be rigid? to me, it is an oxymoron.
it seems like the definitions should intertwine a bit here for more congruency. the problem here is in the code definitions. the buildings are still standing.
mike mccann
mccann engineering
for most single story structures you probably will be rigid, but on process towers, open structures etc. you need to look at these individually. i have had braced frame structures because of their height be classified as flexible and end up with gust factors approaching 1.

__________________
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]