URM out of plane actions, ASCE 41-13 11.3.3.3
URM out of plane actions, ASCE 41-13 11.3.3.3
(OP)
I have the same question as item #2 of this (now closed) thread: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=375408#...
or to paraphrase, how are you folks typically performing non-linear analysis of URM wall piers for out of plane actions?
original question quoted here:
2. Section 11.3.3 addresses Out-of-Plane actions and indicates that "URM walls shall not be analyzed for out-of-plane actions using the linear static procedure (LSP) or nonlinear static procedure (NSP) prescribed in Chapter 7." This is similar to section 7.3.3 of ASCE 41-06. My question is, what are people doing for a dynamic analysis of URM buildings with flexible diaphragms? RAM model? Most modal analyses don't deal with the inertial forces on the walls, but instead group mass/force at nodes. So if static procedures aren't permitted, what does a dynamic analysis look like for a building of this type? If I can show that the wall doesn't crack in a pinned-pinned, static loading condition (fb<fte) using expected tensile strength of the masonry, wouldn't a dynamic analysis only reduce the demands on the wall by "softening" the diaphragm reaction into a spring?
Thank you-
or to paraphrase, how are you folks typically performing non-linear analysis of URM wall piers for out of plane actions?
original question quoted here:
2. Section 11.3.3 addresses Out-of-Plane actions and indicates that "URM walls shall not be analyzed for out-of-plane actions using the linear static procedure (LSP) or nonlinear static procedure (NSP) prescribed in Chapter 7." This is similar to section 7.3.3 of ASCE 41-06. My question is, what are people doing for a dynamic analysis of URM buildings with flexible diaphragms? RAM model? Most modal analyses don't deal with the inertial forces on the walls, but instead group mass/force at nodes. So if static procedures aren't permitted, what does a dynamic analysis look like for a building of this type? If I can show that the wall doesn't crack in a pinned-pinned, static loading condition (fb<fte) using expected tensile strength of the masonry, wouldn't a dynamic analysis only reduce the demands on the wall by "softening" the diaphragm reaction into a spring?
Thank you-





