www.sefindia.org

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FORUM OF INDIA [SEFI]

 Forum SubscriptionsSubscriptions DigestDigest Preferences   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister FAQSecurity Tips FAQDonate
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log in to websiteLog in to websiteLog in to websiteLog in to forum 
Warning: Make sure you scan the downloaded attachment with updated antivirus tools  before opening them. They may contain viruses.
Use online scanners
here and here to upload downloaded attachment to check for safety.

Answers from the Moderator to questions raised during the e

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> E-Conference 23rd Sept 2003
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
for_prof_arc at hotmai...
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 12:45 pm    Post subject: Answers from the Moderator to questions raised during the e Reply with quote

I disagree with the comments in the answer to my question.

I have a very long experience in analysis of RCC & Steel Buildings.
I have also carried out experimental studies on actual structures.

There is no doublt in my mind that the punitive clause to anchor to high
Base Shear
forces are totally unwarrented for Steel Structures. Whatever forces are
determined
by analysis should be used in design and empirical formula which have no
relevance to
steel structures should not be used. Further, in India, Steel Structures
would be mainly
for construction in Industrial Buildings.

I have not got any reaction to my comments on the effective Live Load of
Mass attached
to the Crane.

ARC


Quote:
*************************************************
SEFI e-Conference on draft revision of  IS:800, October 06 to November 07,
2003
Quote:
*************************************************
Question:  I feel that IS: 800 should have explicit provisions for
earthquake effects as IS: 1893 is primarily meant for RCC structures. In
particular, the punitive clauses of IS: 1893 should not be applied to steel
structures. The empirical formulae for fundamental period [which is used for
defining minimum base shear] are NOT applicable to steel structures. The
modeling of steel structures could be far more accurate than RCC structure
as the properties of section [EA, EI, GJ] can be accurately determined.
Further, it is likely that steel structures would be "an engineered
construction" and therefore let the forces as obtained from analysis be
taken for design without imposing arbitrary penalties. There is also a case
for larger reduction factors for steel structures as compared to concrete
construction!! The reduction factor of 5 is mostly unachievable in RCC
whereas it could be achieved in steel. Hence to have overall effective
seismic factor [a combination of Z, I, R, T]!
Quote:
of the same order, R for steel structure could be larger, say, 5 & 6
instead of 4 & 5. - A.R Chandrasekaran
Quote:

Ans:   Section 12 is giving explicit provision for design of steel
structures to resist earthquake effect.  However, IS: 800 cannot override
the provisions given in IS: 1893. The empirical formula address
uncertainties in modeling such as stiffness of infills and is applicable to
steel structures also.
Quote:


Posted via Email
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> E-Conference 23rd Sept 2003 All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


© 2003, 2008 SEFINDIA, Indian Domain Registration
Publishing or acceptance of an advertisement is neither a guarantee nor endorsement of the advertiser's product or service. advertisement policy