×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

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.

Students Click Here

Defining Earthquake Directions

Defining Earthquake Directions

Defining Earthquake Directions

(OP)
Hello all,

I have a question about defining eartquake loads:

1) In some Etabs tutorials, directions are defined like in the first part of the picture (1) : X Dir, X Dir+Ecc, Y Dir+Ecc all selected in one load pattern.

2) And in some other examples there are 3 different Load Patterns: EX, EXp and EXn (and Load Cases with the same words) (By the way, I am talking about only X direction. It is same for Y directions too.)

3) And in some other ones like this one, there are 2 different Load Patterns : EXP and EXN.

4) Except the ones above, there is one more option like in the second part of the picture (2) I think. (By the way the screen from Sap2000 but the logic is the same I think.)

So, my question is: Which options are OK? Which ones are not correct? Which ones are the best options?

Could you please help me about this confusion?



Regards,
Latif

RE: Defining Earthquake Directions

Depends on the code provisions, usually codes prescribe for static analysis 100% load in one direction and 30% of load in the other direction orthogonal to the first one. Also, normally codes forse you to apply an accidental eccetnricity (for example 0.1 of the diaphragm dimension perpendicular to the load direction, in Autsralia) to your static loads.

So the correct thing to do in ETABS is to tick only the second and third (Dir+Ecc and Dir-Ecc) which means it will run the case with positive eccentricity and the case with negative eccentricity. The case with no eccentricity has no use, normally. You can choose to tick that one too, it simply won't ever govern your design or checks. You then need to do the same for the Y direction. And finally you need ot combine them with gravity loads (again as per your code, often it is 1.0G+0.3Q) plus all permutation between EX and 0.3 EY and all permutations between EY and 0.3 EX

So to sum up your patterns in ETABS will be

EX:
X Dir + Eccentricity
X Dir - Eccentricity

EY:
Y Dir + Eccentricity
Y Dir - Eccentricity

Lead load cases as automatically created by etabs when you define the load patterns and then you need to define the design combinations as follows
G+0.3Q+EX+0.3EY
G+0.3Q+EX-0.3EY
G+0.3Q-EX+0.3EY
G+0.3Q-EX-0.3EY
G+0.3Q+EY+0.3EX
G+0.3Q+EY-0.3EX
G+0.3Q-EY+0.3EX
G+0.3Q-EY-0.3EX
(the above is valid if the code prescribes G+0.3Q, otherwise you need to apply the factors as per your code)

ETABS will always automatically associate eccentricities so they always produce the worst case (summing positive with positve and negative with negative), so for each combinaiton you will have 2 steps (one ofr positive and one for negative eccentricity)

RE: Defining Earthquake Directions

(OP)
Thank you so much for your answer. In tutorial I watched it load pattern was defined like the picture number one above. And load combinations was defined like the picture below. As an example, for 0.9G±E, only 8 load combinations should be enough. But the picture below says we have to define 8x9=72 load combinations. But according to your answer, we dont need to do that and only 8 combinations would be enough.

The tutorial takes X dir (0.00 exc.) into considetation (maybe codes says so) too. And maybe that is why 8x9=72 total combinations needed. I will be glad if you have any more comment about it.

RE: Defining Earthquake Directions

As for the direction of the earthquake everything is generally clear, but now I have a question to the professionals about this kind of life radar. Do you think it will work best when searching for people under rubble? Who uses it, share your impressions?

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! Already a Member? Login


Resources

Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. 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:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close