×
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

EQ differences using ASCE and UBC

EQ differences using ASCE and UBC

EQ differences using ASCE and UBC

(OP)
I have a two story wood structure with wood floor/roof and wall plywood construction. I get very different seismic coefficient using the ASCE and UBC; which does not seem to be reasonable.  

For ASCE equation V=(F Sds/R)W= 1.1*0.267/6.5 W = 0.045W

For UBC equation V=(Cv I/R T)W = (0.54*1.0/5.5*0.15) W = 0.65 W

For UBC equation Vmax=(2.5 Ca I/R)W = (2.5*0.36/5.5)W= 0.16 W; which I can divide by 1.4 to convert it to allowable stress design to get 0.12W.

My question is why the coefficient of 0.045W is so low with for  ASCE design compared to 0.12W using the UBC?  Is there any minimum limit for the seismic coefficient using the ASCM?

Thanks
 

RE: EQ differences using ASCE and UBC

As all earthquake loads are approximations and research is increasing the understanding of things at a rapid rate there is no surprise as to the variability between codes.

All you can do is ensure that you comply with the code under the relevant jurisdiction.

 

RE: EQ differences using ASCE and UBC

Some thoughts:

1) You'll have about a 15% difference between them based on the different R values.  That's not even a difference in the code, but rather a difference in a variable.  

2) The shape of the UBC and ASCE acceleration curves is essentially the same.  Where Cv = Sd1, and Sds = 2.5*Ca.  In your case 2.5*Ca = three times the Sds value!!  This is the main cause of your difference.  This may be a case where the seismic maps were drammatically changed between 1997 and today.  Perhaps to reflect new knowledge about a previously unkown (or under estimated) fault.   

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