×
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)
The NBCC (Canadian building code) allows us to reduce the base shear by multiplying by a factor of IE/RDRO. The code then specifies that for deflections, the values should be multiplied by RDRO/IE. My question is, should we be multiplying the reduced base shear values by this factor, to bring the deflections back up to an elastic base shear, or should we be multiplying deflections using the original elastic base shear, to increase them (by approximately 2 for RdRo = 1.5 x 1.3).

I think the latter, as this increase in deflections captures the deflections possible due to the inelastic behaviour expected in an earthquake. My colleague feels that it should be the former, where we are increased the reduced base shear back up to the original elastic base shear for deflections.

Not familiar with your code specifically, but the approach is usually consistent with factoring the reduced base shear (reduced due to ductility/inelastic behaviour) at your design basis level event back up to the equivalent elastic level drift/deflections. EDIT - 2nd way over estimates this response.

(OP)
My concern was that if we are allowing the structure to perform inelastically in an earthquake, how do the deflections from the elastic (unreduced) base shear correlate to this? The inelastic behaviour will reduce stiffness. Are the increased deflections from this inelasticity adequately represented by the increased design force back to elastic conditions? Is there any additional reading you recommend on this?

Cheers

Reduced shear is used to check strength and deflection (base shear divided by RdR0). Structure strength is to be guaranteed by structure detailing design per the structure types (connection or end of beam yield to dissipate energy). Calculated deflection (elastic analysis) per reduced base shear has to be adjusted by RdR0 to consider the possible deflection amplification due to possible structure inelastic behavior.

#### Quote:

Are the increased deflections from this inelasticity adequately represented by the increased design force back to elastic conditions?

At least in ASCE 7, you divide by the Response modification factor (R) to reflect the post-elastic response of the structure (based on type), i.e. the forces. And you multiply by the deflection amplification factor (Cd) to get real world deflections in the event.

In many cases, R & Cd are pretty close......but in others (especially more flexible systems with good energy dissipation systems, like special moment frames), R is significantly higher than Cd.

The NBCC worded it very clearly. You should multiply the "lateral deflections" obtained from linear analysis by Rd Ro/ IE to give realistic values of the anticipated deflections.

You then have to compare it with the code limits.

fracture_point, read up on equal energy principle and equal displacement principle in relation to seismic response spectra. Depending on which one governs is linked to the period of the structure.

There is some discussion in this report regarding these aspects that might help to explain things (in a NZ context at least), codes generally follow similar concepts around the world with varying scaling factors applied meant to allow for these effects.

#### 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.

#### Resources

eBook - Efficient and Effective Production Support with 3D Printed Jigs and Fixtures
Jigs and fixtures offer manufacturers a reliable process for delivering accurate, high-quality outcomes, whether for a specific part or feature, or for consistency across multiples of parts. Although the methodologies and materials for producing jigs and fixtures have evolved beyond the conventional metal tooling of years past, their position as a manufacturing staple remains constant due to the benefits they offer. Download Now
Overcoming Cutting Tool Challenges in Aerospace Machining
Aerospace manufacturing has always been on the cutting edge, from materials to production techniques. However, these two aspects of aerospace machining can conflict, as manufacturers strive to maintain machining efficiency with new materials by using new methods and cutting tools. Download Now

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!