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 2009-09-09, 06:57 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 ibc vs. aisc seismic - revisited

ibc vs. aisc seismic - revisited
some time ago i posted a question here about a funny relationship between the ibc 2000 and aisc seismic provisions. this was in this thread:
jae:
this issue has been widely discussed in aisc website. anytime you design a building with r>3, irrespective of the seismic design category, you have to use the seismic detailing provisions of aisc. for example, if you use a ocbf system (r=5, ibc 2000) in a building which falls under sdc "a", you still have to use all the seismic detailing requirements.
based on several studies, it has been proven that it will be economical to use r=3 for sdc a, b & c.
hope this helps.
thanks prsconsultant. i understand that. i understand the concept that according to the ibc with r>3 you are directed to follow the aisc requirements.
the odd thing i'm bringing up is that the aisc seismic design specification, for three different editions, has continually stated that "this is only for sdc d and greater".
yet for the ibc 2000, 2003, and 2006 that code still counters the aisc spec by mandating for sdc a, b, and c that you follow it.
bottom line issue: i just would have thought that the two entities would have come together on this before now to make the logic flow better.
the 2005 aisc seismic provisions have been revised to be consistent with the ibc. they now state that the provisions apply for r greater than 3 instead of using the sdc.
taro,
thanks for that...i'll check that wording out tomorrow. i quickly checked on the new seismic manual spec that i just got and guess i brushed over it too fast.
i just went to the seismic seminar in birmingham and the presenter said that the r for steel ocbf's was specifically set at 3.25, not because of a numerical need, but to force the use of seismic detailing regardless of sdc. this illustrates that aisc is on board.
if you "heard" it on the internet, it's guilty until proven innocent. - dcs
maybe in the old seismic code it says that, but it isn't the same in ibc2006. 2006 leads you to seismic provisions 341-05. in section 1.0 "scope" it now says "these provisions shall apply when the seismic response modification coefficient, r, is taken greater than 3, regardless of the seismic design category".
ok - so it looks like for ibc 2006 and the aisc seismic spec 341-05 they are now consistent.
__________________
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
ibc seismic question 9again0 huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 06:53 PM
ibc seismic effect e huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 06:52 PM
ibc 2003 1605.4 special seismic combinations huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 06:42 PM
ibc 2000 - seismic-force-resisting system huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 06:38 PM
2003 ibc seismic - troubleshooting huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 08:27 AM


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