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!

*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.

Jobs

APPENDIX D FOR NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENT IN SEISMIC CATEGORY E

APPENDIX D FOR NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENT IN SEISMIC CATEGORY E

(OP)
IBC 2009 section 1908.1.9 modifies the ACI 318 Appendix D as follows:

"Section D.3.3. Modify ACI 318, Sections D.3.3.4 and D.3.3.5 to read as follows:

D.3.3.4 - Anchors shall be designed to be governed by the steel strength of a ductile steel element as determined in accordance with D.5.1 and D.6.1, unless either D.3.3.5 or D.3.3.6 is satisfied.

Exceptions:

1. Anchors in concrete designed to support non- structural components in accordance with ASCE 7 Section 13.4.2 need not satisfy Section D.3.3.4.

2. Anchors designed to resist wall out-of-plane forces with design strengths equal to or greater than the force determined in accordance with ASCE 7 Equation 12.11-1 or 12.14-10 need not satisfy Section D.3.3.4."


If I understand this correctly, we can neglect the requirements of D.3.3.4 (i.e. neglect ductile failure requirements)for non-structural components, i.e .air filters, cooling towers, blowers, pumps, etc..  

What are your thoughts on this? Do we not need to assure the functionality and position retention for these items during and after a severe earthquake?


vvs


 

RE: APPENDIX D FOR NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENT IN SEISMIC CATEGORY E

I agree with your interpretation, ductile failure of the anchorage or the 2.5 overstrength factor is not required for the anchorage of non-structural components.  This was newly added in the 2009 IBC and I don't think occured in the 2006 (except 2007 CBC had it in the "A" chapters).

What's the reasoning for this?  I'd imagine it has to do with the fact that building design in high seismic areas is all about capacity design approach and limiting the failure mechanisms to ductile areas so in the event that an earthquake occurs that is larger than anticipated there is sufficient ductility for the earthquake to have some "reserve" capacity.  I believe this logic is the reasoning they do not allow Ordinary Moment Frames in high-seismic areas (outside of some limitations) even though they could be designed for the higher forces and lower R.  It's all about life-safety and having as much reserve capacity as possible.

Now with non-structural components, I think largely the impact of a failure of a non-structural component is not as critical.  A failure of a non-structural component will not result in the collapse of the building, so the need for that extra "reserve" capacity is not as great.  Now, the building code provides MINIMUM design loads.  If for some reason, you feel that the failure of your component could have larger impacts, then I would decided on a case-by-case basis if I wanted to include it.

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


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close