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


 
 
主题工具 搜索本主题 显示模式
旧 2009-09-08, 01:07 PM   #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 confused about redundancy factor for asce 7-05

confused about redundancy factor for asce 7-05
i'm still getting acquainted with california's adoption of asce 7-05, and have a hard time understanding the idea of the new redundancy factor calculations (asce 12.3.4.2). below is a couple of questions that i have in regards to the section, i'm hoping that someone can help me out.
table 12.3-3 states shear wall or wall pier with height to length ratio of less than 1 shall be removed and checked that it would not result in a 33% reduction of story strength (in order to maintain a rho of 1). my understanding is that the code is asking me to eliminate a weaker pier/wall (in terms of rigidity) and check for the 33% reduction. shouldn't i be more concerned about eliminating a stronger pier/wall (i.e. wall to height ratio of greater than 1)? based on wall rigidity, a stronger wall/pier will take more shear force, and eliminating one of them will be more critical,... right? also, if my shear walls are all less than 1 in height to length ratio, does that automatically mean the rho is 1?
i am also starting to get the impression that a rho of 1.3 will practically never occur for a structure with shear walls as the lateral resisting element. for example, if we are assuming a simple box structure with a flexible diaphragm, the perimeter walls on each side will take 50% of the base shear. assume that there are only 2 shear walls at each side, this leads to 50% of the base shear * 50% for each shear wall. if i am to eliminate one of them, that only leads to a 25% reduction of story strength. so it seems that the only time rho of 1.3 applies is when there is only one shear wall on the perimeter of a building.
sorry for the long post, but this section has got me scratching my head. any help or tips will be much appreciated. thank you.

i'm pretty sure the provision is written that way because the weaker wall will be the one that fails first. they want you to check the l/h>1 walls because they'll still be there when the l/h<1 wall has failed. the provision likely comes from field observations of how structures with multiple shear walls fail.
if you "heard" it on the internet, it's guilty until proven innocent. - dcs
__________________
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)
 


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
asce7-05 redundancy factor huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 01:28 PM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 12:41 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