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 2009-09-08, 06:14 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 designing for geotechnical acceleration vs ubc

designing for geotechnical acceleration vs ubc
i am designing a 125 foot diameter steel flat bottom water tank. the geotech report included a probabilistic seismic risk evaluation which they gave as a tripartite response spectra.
my question is, when comparing the acceleration from the geotech to the acceleration computed from the ubc, are both accelerations apples and apples or is one based on working stress and one based on strength design? (i.e. the 1.4 factor comes into play).
any help is greatly appreciated.
check out our whitepaper library.
hmmm,
you should ask your geotechnical engineer that question. my gut says the two values should have the same basis for use - but this may not be right. ask.
i agree with foch3, you'll have to ask your geotechnical engineer. the following is only general info...
the ubc, as typical with structural design codes and standards, defines most loads (d=dead, l=live, etc.) at "service level" (meaning roughly a maximum value that may be experienced in typical use), the load level at which asd provisions have been "calibrated". alternately, strength design provisions are calibrated against load levels judged to have a sufficiently low probability of being exceeded during extreme situations, load levels which calculated by factoring the service loads d, l, etc. but you knew all that...
the point is that earthquake loads e are the exception to the rule, in that they are explicitly defined at the "sufficiently low probability of being exceeded" level in the ubc. per 1631.2, this is a 10% exceedence probability in 50 years [the code-assumed design life]--a 475-year earthquake (for std poisson temporal distribution), like one thinks of a 500-yr flood. although this code section is for dynamic analysis, this exceedence level is the intent behind all the ubc provisions. for service-level forces, e is reduced by 1/1.4.
now the standard procedures for conducting a probabilistic hazard analysis result in ground motions that have some exceedence probability explicitly targeted by the investigator. so for what probability level did your geotech provide results? 10% in 50 years (475-year return period)? if so, it corresponds directly with ubc provisions for e, a "strength" force level. if not, they don't.
__________________
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
designing columns for concrete buildings huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-08 06:12 PM
1997 ubc wind loads for components huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-06 10:51 PM
1997 ubc load combinations huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-06 10:50 PM
1997 ubc collector element design huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-06 10:50 PM
1982 ubc standard huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-06 10:48 PM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 01:12 AM.


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