×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
• Talk With Other Members
• Be Notified Of Responses
• Keyword Search
Favorite Forums
• Automated Signatures
• 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

(OP)
1.2D+1.0E+L+0.2S
0.9D+1.0E
E = Eh +- Ev = pQE +- 0.2SDSD
where QE is the effect of horizontal seismic effect, and 0.2SDSD is the vertical seismic effect.

Now, suppose designing a moment frame that is for lateral load only, i.e. it is not taking any dead/live load except its self weight, but it is taking seismic lateral load due to building's dead load. What "D" should be used for the 0.2SDSD? Do we use the building's D? Or, just the moment frame's self weight D?

I would say that you would want to include a leaning column with the dead load of the portion of the structure that relies on the frame for lateral stability. and you would use the 0.2Sds modifier if the SDC requires it.

(OP)
So in another word, we could end up with a situation where:

1.2D1+1.0(pQE + 0.2SDSD2)+L+0.2S

where D1 is the moment frame's self weight dead load; and D2 include the frame's self weight plus the part of the building's dead load that the frame is taking lateral load from.

Interesting.

Just like you would use the seismic load (from the attached tributary dead loads) that are applied to the frame.
I guess I'm not sure why the question at all?

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

(OP)
The question was: are the D's that appear in the load combination (1.2D and the 0.2SDSD) the same D, or can they be different.

In ASCE 7-10 12.4.2.3, they seem to say that the D should be the same D:
"...the following seismic load combination...shall be used in lieu of the seismic load combination in Section 2.3.2 or 2.4.1"

5. (1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + pQE + L + 0.2S
..."

Here, you see they are suggesting the D being the same for 1.2D and 0.2SDSD.

But we just discussed a case where the D can be different.

There is no difference between them.
One is a gravity effect and one is the vertical effect of the seismic event on that dead load.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

This is an interesting question. And I think that RobertHale nailed it. I believe my sketch below to be a graphical representation of RobertHale's suggestion. You would take the seismic amplified dead loads shown in the frame elevation and plug them into your usual load combinations.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

KootK - Not sure about that. Does bringing in D3 in your sketch, and using it to add to the lateral seismic effect E, follow the intent of what 0.2SDS(D) was meant to do?

I've always understood that the 0.2SDS factor on D was intended to deal with the vertical accelerations of the seismic event and how they add to or subtract from the static dead load D.

In your sketch, you are attempting to take a 0.2SDS amount of dead load and create a lateral load effect on the frame.
Isn't it correct that the typical rho x QE seismic demand value, along with the direct design method, already takes notional load effects into account?

Now if you had some purposely angled columns in the framework then I could see the vertical seismic effect on D creating additional lateral effects on the frame via 0.2SDS(D).

Your sketch is dealing with someone modeling the frame as a 2D entity and then attempting to manually bring in loads to it to account for the combinations.
If you had a full 3D model of the entire building, you would simply apply the loads to the model, apply the combinations (1.2D+1.0E+L+0.2S or 0.9D+1.0E) with E = Eh +- Ev = pQE +- 0.2SDS(D), and get your results.
There would be no need to add fictitious rigid members with phi angles.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Quote (JAE)

KootK - Not sure about that.

Me neither. I welcome the debate.

Quote (JAE)

Does bringing in D3 in your sketch, and using it to add to the lateral seismic effect E, follow the intent of what 0.2SDS(D) was meant to do?

In my mind it does. The whole building tributary vertical seismic load (WBTVSL) generates a lateral load on any out of plumb columns that rely on the moment frames for lateral stability. The WBTVSL also adds to the P-delta burden on those same columns. If this effect is accounted for elsewhere in the process, then that's news to me. I feel that it should be accounted for somewhere, however.

One interesting feature is that the vertical seismic loads are transitory, cyclical, and short lived. Perhaps they could disappear before P-delta buckling gets rolling? But then who knows how fast a thing buckles?

Quote (JAE)

Isn't it correct that the typical rho x QE seismic demand value, along with the direct design method, already takes notional load effects into account?

It definitely takes notional loads into effect. But notional loads only deal with the destabilizing effect of the 1/500 out of plumb imperfection. They don't include the lateral loads that result when the WBTVSL acts on those out of plumb columns. They also don't capture the contribution of the WBTVSL to the system's P-delta burden.

Quote (JAE)

If you had a full 3D model of the entire building, you would simply apply the loads to the model, apply the combinations (1.2D+1.0E+L+0.2S or 0.9D+1.0E) with E = Eh +- Ev = pQE +- 0.2SDS(D), and get your results. There would be no need to add fictitious rigid members with phi angles.

Your approach, like mine, already includes the destabilizing effect of the WBTVSL on the P-delta burden.

[1.2D + 1.0E] = [1.2D + 1.0Eh + 1.0Ev] = [1.2D + 1.0Eh + 1.0 x 0.2SDS x D] = [(1+0.2SDS)D + 1.0Eh].

As your 3D model moved laterally, [0.2 x SDS x DL_[whole building]] would be contributing to P-delta instability I think. The difference with my approach is that I would add (0.002 WBTVSL) to the notional loads.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

Well as to PDelta effects on the overall building - the IBC and ASCE 7 do include provisions when PDelta needs to be included in the analysis (That theta parameter).

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

It's also worth noting that 0.002 x 0.2 x SDS x D is about equivalent the wind pressure generated by the flap of a butterfly wing. That part gets lost in the noise. Even I wouldn't bother if it didn't fall out of a spreadsheet automatically.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

D in all portions of all load combinations is the dead load directly tributary to the frame.

In the interest of precision, we need to distinguish between loads that are tributary to the frame in a gravity sense and those that are tributary to the frame in a stability sense. Those are obviously not the same thing.

The notional loads applied to the frame will have a dead load component. And that component will, in general, include contributions from dead loads that are not directly tributary to the frame in a gravity sense.

In a second order P-delta analysis (DAM), dead loads not directly tributary to the frame in a gravity sense will generate lateral dead loads on the frame as those non-tributary dead loads shift laterally in space.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

The load combinations in chapter 12 show the intent clearly.
(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + ρE + L + 0.2S
(0.9 - 0.2SDS)D + ρE

I'm afraid that doesn't resolve anything for me WannabeSE. What does it say to you?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

(OP)
@wonnabeSE

for the 1.2D, the D is the dead load the member is supporting.

They DO NOT have to be the same D. If they are not the same D, (1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + ρE + L + 0.2S does not apply.

For a simple example:

The floor dead load are supported by Beam A and B, not by 1 and 2.

Designing Beam 1 and 2, the 1.2D is only their self weight. But the 0.2SDSD is from half of the floor dead load plus the beam self weight.

(1.2 + 0.2SDS)D + ρE + L + 0.2S in this case I think do not apply.

@Azureblue:

For vertical load applied to any member, the D used for [0.2 x SDS x D] is the same D as that used for regular gravity design.

It is only the lateral and stability loads that need to be based on the larger D that generates the seismic load. At least that's my take on it.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

Here's my interpretation of how your example should be handled Azureblue.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

(OP)
You are right. I thought the dead load in DL2 would have vertical seismic effect in Beam 1 and 2. Now I think about it, they would only affect the columns and Beam A and B, not 1 and 2. Although, in practice, the floor is probably one piece and Beam 1 and 2 would essentially receive some vertical seismic effect from DL2; it's conservative to design Beam 1 and 2 for it.

Quote (KootK)

It is only the lateral and stability loads that need to be based on the larger D that generates the seismic load. At least that's my take on it.
Horizontal seismic forces are based on the effective seismic weight, w or W. For any given level, the effective seismic weight, wx, is frequently (almost always) different than the total dead load to the level. Effective seismic weight is frequently called seismic mass.

Vertical seismic forces are proportional to the dead loads on each members. The vertical seismic force is applied to all framing not just the lateral framing.

@WannabeSE: do we disagree on some aspect of this? If so, can you elaborate? It's not clear to me as nothing in your last post seems to contradict any of my stuff as far as I can tell.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

Let me clarify my previous statement: "D in all portions of all load combinations is the dead load directly tributary to the frame."

The "D" in question is the gravity dead load directly tributary to the member being designed for the load effects resulting from the load combinations. It is the SAME D between the 1.2D and the 0.2SdsD. NOT DIFFERENT. The thought that you must carry a different "D" through the load combinations for the vertical seismic effect is ludicrous. It is a member force check, so certainly the forces on the columns should be based on the tributary areas to those columns. The "D" should be collected to the members (beams, columns, etc. separately) and then multiplied by 0.2Sds for that particular member to get the vertical seismic effect on that particular member in the load combination.

KootK
Conceptually, we do not disagree. It is semantics. When discussing horizontal seismic loads, I think it is confusing (and technically wrong) to call the effective seismic weight a dead load. Perhaps, I am being pedantic.

This is as good a place as any for some pedantry.

I think that I see the source of the confusion now. At no point in any of my comments above was I discussing seismic loads resulting from horizontal accelerations. Rather, I was referring to the vertical and horizontal loads resulting from vertical accelerations. The code defines seismic loads due to vertical accelerations in terms of dead load and I followed suit. Why there's not some "other stuff" in the effective vertical seismic mass, I can't say.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

Now, I am really missing something. I can understand a horizontal forces in response to a vertical load. But, how do you get a horizontal load from a vertical acceleration?

With a leaning column - a sort of PDelta effect from the vertical movement creates a horizontal reaction.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Quote (wannabeSE)

Now, I am really missing something. I can understand a horizontal forces in response to a vertical load. But, how do you get a horizontal load from a vertical acceleration?

Under vertical acceleration, all of your columns would, on the up cycle, have extra compression in them related to vertical seismic acceleration, right? Now tilt those same columns by 0.2% and you've got a lateral load component that compression.

In my opinion, there are two aspects to this:

1) The lateral loads mentioned above become part of the notional load demand.
2) The vertical loads generated by vertical seismic acceleration add to the P-delta demand and affect the lateral load design of vertical bracing elements that way.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

KootK, your interpretation is what I was trying to say. In my mind the additional vertical load from seismic accelerations has to be applied to the vertical imperfections captured by the "notional loads" or displacements. The vertical force is real, an approximation grant you, but a real force none the same. The initial structural imperfection is real (although the imperfection we model has a very low probability in my opinion). I see no way to negate or neglect this force.

Is the seismic contribution to notional loads ever significant when compared to the seismic lateral loads? How often does .002(0.2SDS D) exceed 1% of the seismic lateral load?

Quote (wannabeSE)

Is the seismic contribution to notional loads ever significant when compared to the seismic lateral loads?

To quote one of the most brilliant structural minds of our time...

Quote (KootK)

It's also worth noting that 0.002 x 0.2 x SDS x D is about equivalent the wind pressure generated by the flap of a butterfly wing.

No, it would never be more than 1%.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

So is this agreed upon then? It appears Kootk's sketch on 22 Jul 15 21:03 follows what was done in an AISC seminar on Stability "Stability Design of Low- and Medium-Rise Steel Buildings (By Don White). Atleast I think it is similar, I haven't had time to really go through it.

I'd say so with the understanding that the "vertical seismic notional load" component is meaningless numerically and quite possibly not the intent of ASCE-7.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt 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.

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:

• Talk To Other Members
• Notification Of Responses To Questions
• Favorite Forums One Click Access
• Keyword Search Of All Posts, And More...

Register now while it's still free!