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, 06:42 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 2003 - table 1604.3

ibc 2003 - table 1604.3
in ibc 2003 - table 1604.3, note f states "the wind load is permitted to be taken as .7 times the "component and cladding" loads for the purpose of determining deflection limits herein."
anyone know the origin of this note? is it similar to the serviceability for drift information in asce?
thanks.

rc
all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
edmund burke

check out this thread:
thanks for the information, but the note in ibc only states for components and cladding, where that thread was discussing drift limits of mwfrs.
any ideas on why this is limited to c+c?
rc
all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
edmund burke

could it be that the reason for the 0.7 (per the linked threads) is that it is based on the statistical differences of the wind pressures that only really affect the peak pressures that c&c are so susceptible to?...while the mwfrs wind is more of a global averaging of the wind over larger areas and thus not affected to any degree by the difference in the statistical wind measurements?

i used 0.7w for checking serviceability drifts of mwrs all the time - the code does not explicitly cover wind drifts and thus it is left up to engineering judgement.
there is a return period factor in the commentary of asce 7. typically as willisv pointed out, drifts are checked for a 10 year return period storm while strength design is done at a 50 year return period. the factor for a 10 year return period is around 0.7.
i agree with willis. we use 0.7w for checking drifts all the time. i don't think this in inappropriate. first, it accounts for the 10-year return period (though, admittedly, i do use 0.71 for v=90mps, and a different - slightly higher - factor for higher velocities); second, if you want to get technical, the mwfrs and c&c wind loads are the same if the trib area is >750ft2, as would be the case for the whole building when checking drift.
__________________
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 2000 ` 2003, base shear huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 06:41 PM
ibc 06 table 1804.2 bearing capacities allow. or gross huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-09 06:36 PM
base shear calculation fron ibc and asce-7 huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 02:29 PM
2003 ibc seismic - troubleshooting huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 08:27 AM
2003 ibc 1620.1.6 huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 08:26 AM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 04:23 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