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 2009-09-07, 12:54 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 asce 17-96 para. 4.2.5 load combinations seiasce 7-02 com

asce 17-96 para. 4.2.5 load combinations & sei/asce 7-02 com
asce 17-96 para. 4.2.5 load combinations and recent sei/asce 7-02 combinations -
in reviewing the asce 17-96 (air supported structures) guideline, paragraph 4.2.5.1 states that "load combinations shall be determined in accordance with asce 7 as modified in section 4.2.5.3 to account for unique aspects of internal pressure as both load and resistance"
asce 17-96 para. 4.2.5.3 lists out the load combinations, factors, and internal pressure loading and internal pressure load factors.
for example: 1.4d-1.0po
0.9d-1.6po
1.2d +1.3w+(....) -1.0po
etc...
note the 1.3 factor on wind load.
looking at sei/asce 7-02, the load combination factors are different. for example, the factor for wind is 1.6w not 1.3w as in asce 17-96.
asce 17-96 was released in 1996 so perhaps this is the reason the factors are different from what asce 7 calls out now.
the question is: in using the asce 17-96 (air supported structures) guide, are the factors listed in load combinations to be replaced with the most recent guidlines issued by asce ?
i would tend to think - yes, since the asce 17-96 states that ""load combinations shall be determined in accordance with asce 7 as modified in section 4.2.5.3 to account for unique aspects of internal pressure as both load and resistance".
this tells me that the load combinations given in asce 7 should be used, but the po (internal pressure) term must be used to account for the air structure interal pressure.
do you agree or should the load combination equations found in asce 17-96 be used as stated even if the factors are different from the ones suggested by asce 7 ?
thanks for any thoughts.

check out our whitepaper library.
the previous asce 7 wind load factor was 1.3. this was because a wind directionality factor of 0.85 was already in the source wind speeds and wind load w.
with more recent versions of asce 7, the 0.85 factor was removed from the w, and placed in the load factor.
so the new load factor changed from 1.3 to:
1.3 x (1/0.85) = 1.529 .... i.e 1.6
so in using any load combination, you should understand where the w is sourced from and use the appropriate load factor.
__________________
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
arema rating steel bridge load combinations huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 12:50 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
1997 ubc load combinations huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-06 10:50 PM
100 or 100 = 25 huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-06 10:27 PM
ad load factor in asd huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-06 10:22 PM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 05:04 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