×
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

Big design result difference by using UBC-Code and by using IBC & ASCE

Big design result difference by using UBC-Code and by using IBC & ASCE

Big design result difference by using UBC-Code and by using IBC & ASCE

(OP)

I have always had an impression that for a specific project, no matter what Code you are using, the final result designed by the two different Code should not off too far. However recently I am working on a non-building structure design that are not similar to building. I found a surprisingly big difference between the results by these two different design Codes.

The project is located at Fresno, California.  The effective seismic weight of the  structure is W=1273569 lb. The fundamental period is T=0.614.

By using UBC-97: from the seismic zone map, it falls in seismic zone 3, the control equation for base shear is:

V= (Cv*I*W)/(R*T) = 386230 lb        session 1630.2 Eq.(30-4)

The redundancy factor for seismic zone 3 = 1.5.

By using IBC & ASCE7-05: Fresno, California has following value: Ss=0.507,  S1=0.223, SDs=0.4713, SD1=0.2905, the control equation for base shear is:

V= Cs*W = 200078 lb      ASCE7-05 Eq. (12.8-1)
Where:
Cs=SDs/(R/I)        ASCE7-05 Eq. (12.8-2)

The redundancy factor for non-building structure that are not similar to building = 1.0 (see  Clause 12.3.4.1).

Therefore the final seismic load effect on the structure for UBC design is about:

 1.5*386230/200078=2.89 times as large as by IBC & ASCE7-05. The weight for this structure by UBC will also approximately doubled than by IBC & ASCE7-05.

Am I missed anything?

Thanks.


 

RE: Big design result difference by using UBC-Code and by using IBC & ASCE

Well I have a couple of thoughts...

1) I don't think you need the p factor in your UBC 97 calculations, see setion 1634.1.2.

This brings the forces down to a factor of 2.  This does seem higher than I would expect but I think this discrepancy is because you are in Seismic Zone 3.  I think the IBC forces are much lower than the UBC forces in Seismic Zone 3.  Had your structure been in Zone 4 of UBC I would not expect such a discrepancy.  

RE: Big design result difference by using UBC-Code and by using IBC & ASCE

Rho is included in UBC 97 for EQ forces 1630.1.1), but not for wind.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
http://mmcengineering.tripod.com
 

RE: Big design result difference by using UBC-Code and by using IBC & ASCE

Mike - sorry I didn't intend to say you don't need the tho factor merely that tho is allowed to equal 1 if you follow 1634

RE: Big design result difference by using UBC-Code and by using IBC & ASCE

I don't have the standard here in front of me- but if you apply the load combinations from the first chapter of ASCE 7, does the seismic get multiplied by 0.7 for allowable stress design?

Another consideration is that it seems 99% of the thought that goes into the standard is for buildings, and when you get into the oddball stuff, you tend to have a lot less clarity in the standard and more variation in the approaches used.

RE: Big design result difference by using UBC-Code and by using IBC & ASCE

Jstephen you do get to take 0.7 for allowable stress design. From what I remember UBC 97 was e first code to use strengthn level forces for earthquake forces. Had it been UBC 94 then there would have been this difference.  

RE: Big design result difference by using UBC-Code and by using IBC & ASCE

In my observations, the UBC Zone method was a sledgehammer. Sometimes areas were placed in zones due to political boundaries. For example, all of Yuma, AZ was in Zone 4, but using the mapped values the east side had barely Zone 2 accelerations.
Maybe you're running into that with Fresno.

RE: Big design result difference by using UBC-Code and by using IBC & ASCE

(OP)

JStephen:

To compare apple to apple, for IBC & ASCE7-05, by using ASD, the seismic load does multiplied by 0.7. However by UBC97, ASD, the seismic load also need divided by 1.4 which is approximately same as multiply by 0.7.

The only place which can bring down UBC97 seismic load a little is that we really can use redundancy factor = 1.0 instead of 1.5 by applying UBC97 Eq(30-3). Then the seismic load by UBC97 is still about twice as large as by IBC & ASCE7-05.
 

RE: Big design result difference by using UBC-Code and by using IBC & ASCE

That really depends on where you are though.  I found the loads very comparable for my region.  Not much change at all...

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
http://mmcengineering.tripod.com
 

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