×
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

Non-building Structures Similar to Buildings

Non-building Structures Similar to Buildings

Non-building Structures Similar to Buildings

(OP)
I have a free standing, 4 column concentric braced frame stair access tower in a seismic design category D zone.  

It can be classified per ASCE 7-05 table 15.4-1 as an ordinary concentrically braced frame, whereby you have to either design it as a building or use a low R value of 1.5.  As far as I can tell it would be subject to the redundancy requirements in chapter 12 no matter what the R value.

Or it can be classified per table 15.4-2 as a freestanding trussed tower with R=3 and minimal detailing requirements.

What defines a non-building structure similar to a building?

RE: Non-building Structures Similar to Buildings

The definition is a little unclear to me, we also design a lot of non building structures and this comes up often in discussion in my firm.  I would think your stair tower would definately be similar to buildings, as well as pipe racks, storage racks, structural towers supporting tanks, etc.  So AISC 341 detailing would be required.  But the OCBF requirements aren't that bad....

RE: Non-building Structures Similar to Buildings

Look at the Forestry Service Fire Watch Tower designs.  

Richard A. Cornelius, P.E.
WWW.amlinereast.com

RE: Non-building Structures Similar to Buildings

It sounds to me that the defining point of a building would be if the structure has a diaphragm at each level, with reasonable story heights 8ft-20ft (bearing in mind some relative building footprint)...if so, you could use table 15.4-1.  Also, see 15.5.5 for the definition of a "Structural Tower" similar to a building.

Since you are using R=1.5 for the OCBF, it sounds like it is really tall, otherwise you'd be using the R = 3.25.
Bummer.

Trussed tower seems appropriate if it's quite tall, and without diaphragms (multi-brace up the height = truss).

R=3 for TT... See 15.7.3:  I would still keep the principals of seismic design (ductility) in mind when designing these connections.  It's better to have ductility with forces of a low R, than no ductility with forces of a high R.  

Basically, to slow down a building in an earthquake, something has to yield.  With minimal details, that weak link is failure (possible brittle failure) of your connections.  Hence you are forced to have the higher forces  (strength development) of a low R.   

Also, closely examine where you need to use the Omega factor in 15.7.3, and elsewhere.

So, a little care in detailing would be important, and not that crazy to do, if it as repetitive as I imagine.

Best wishes!

 

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