×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Response Modification for non building structures

Response Modification for non building structures

Response Modification for non building structures

(OP)
Hi all-

I'm having some dialog with colleagues regarding the appropriate R value to use per IBC or ASCE 7.  Specifically I'm looking at free-standing large diameter fiberglass (FRP) tanks.  We get into situations where these things need to be designed with seismic loads "per ASCE 7" or "IBC 2003".  My question is:  what does R really measure?  Our material has more flexibility than steel, but it far less ductile?  Energy absorption in the material itself would be damaging (cause cracking), but the flexibility of the structure would permit significant displacement to occur without damage.

Referring to ASCE 7, Table 9.14.5.1.1, it would appear we are stuck with R=1.5 (Other material).  

Any further insights out there?  Thanks

rd78

RE: Response Modification for non building structures

R is intended to encompass a couple of things, namely redundancy and ductility.  Looking only at ductility, you can view this simplistically by envisioning a stress/strain graph with two separate and distinct behaviors.  One should be fully elastic and the other should be pefectly elastic-perfectly plastic.  Now, look at the difference between the two graphical relationships in the plastic region, the difference between the elastic and perfectly plastic graphs is the value "R".

Keep in mind that "R" defined in the codes is arbitrarily chosen as to be consistent with code requirements.  That is, code requirements are life safety and are a minimum level of effort for the engineer or designer.  Not wanting to be less conservative, the R values are chosen arbitrarily and are on the conservative side, thus they will not exactly match the simplistic definition I posed above.  

In addition, the codes must deal with systems of structures not just materials (as presented above) and so the R factor indirectly accounts for redundancy or the lack of redundancy.

So using the above definition one can see that a large mass supported by a single column of concrete will have a smaller R value than the same mass supported by a single column of steel.  Concrete typically will have less ductility and or energy absorbtion characteristics and will be more susceptible to failure.  So code developers would like to see this type of structure designed for higer forces (elastically) though they may not be achieved in practice.  Steel can tolerate more movement without degradation and so has a lower R value.  

As for redundancy you can see this to by looking at frames vs single supports for the same materials.  Frames will typically have higher R values than will single supports.


Though it doesn't directly answer your question on free-standing tanks, I hope this is useful background for your situation.  I think you can extrapolate this information to Fiberglass vs Steel tanks.

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

RE: Response Modification for non building structures

Note that with a steel tank, you don't have to guess- you'll find "R" given in a steel tank standard, specifically, AWWA D100.  So my first thought is, are there any standards relating to the design of the tank in question?  Or any for even similar (non-metallic) materials?  (Or even any "proposed" standards?)

RE: Response Modification for non building structures

(OP)
The only standard we know about is ASME RTP-1, which is pretty outdated with respect to seismic.  It's undergoing revision, but I think the writers are struggling to properly address this.  Thanks.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources