Reply to the discussion by R.D. Watts on "Proposed Canadian code provisions for seismic design of elements of structures, nonstructural components, and equipment"

2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 392-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
W E McKevitt
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Nonstructural Components ◽  
Code Provisions

Proposed Canadian code provisions for seismic design of elements of structures, nonstructural components, and equipment

2003 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 366-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
W E McKevitt
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Nonstructural Components ◽  
Design Elements ◽  
Uniform Hazard Spectrum ◽  
Component Design ◽  
Recent Earthquakes ◽  
Consistent Treatment ◽  
Connection Design ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Code Provisions

Proposed code provisions for the seismic design of elements of structures, nonstructural components, and equipment are presented. In these provisions a new format is introduced which gives a consistent treatment for all elements and components, architectural, mechanical, and electrical. For the first time, soil effects are included in the provisions, which also seek to ensure that designers consider the interrelationship of the nonstructural components and differential displacements within the building structure. The proposed force equation is based on a uniform hazard spectrum approach with force modification factors. Specified force levels are based on data from instrumented buildings recorded during recent earthquakes. Updated requirements for connection design specify forces that are consistent with component design forces. New element and component categories are provided in an expanded table of elements of structures, nonstructural components, and equipment. To assess the impact of the proposed provisions on component design at various locations across the country, calculations are presented for typical multistorey buildings in a number of Canadian cities.Key words: seismic design, elements of structures, nonstructural mechanical electrical architectural components.

Evaluation of floor acceleration demands from the 2017 Mexico City code seismic provisions using a continuous elastic model and records of instrumented buildings

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 213-237
Author(s):  
Miguel A Jaimes ◽  
Adrián D García-Soto
Keyword(s):  
Mexico City ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Soft Soil ◽  
Response Spectra ◽  
Elastic Model ◽  
Ground Acceleration ◽  
Nonstructural Components ◽  
Floor Response Spectra ◽  
Instrumented Buildings ◽  
Floor Acceleration

This study presents an evaluation of floor acceleration demands for the design of rigid and flexible acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components in buildings, calculated using the most recent Mexico City seismic design provisions, released in 2017. This evaluation includes two approaches: (1) a simplified continuous elastic model and (2) using recordings from 10 instrumented buildings located in Mexico City. The study found that peak floor elastic acceleration demands imposed on rigid nonstructural components into buildings situated in Mexico City might reach values of 4.8 and 6.4 times the peak ground acceleration at rock and soft sites, respectively. The peak elastic acceleration demands imposed on flexible nonstructural components in all floors, estimated using floor response spectra, might be four times larger than the maximum acceleration of the floor at the point of support of the component for buildings located in rock and soft soil. Comparison of results from the two approaches with the current seismic design provisions revealed that the peak acceleration demands and floor response spectra computed with the current 2017 Mexico City seismic design provisions are, in general, adequate.

A Critical Comparison of Seismic Qualification Requirements for Safety Equipment in Various Codes and Standards

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. G. Abatt ◽  
Quazi Hossain ◽  
Milon Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Performance ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Power Plants ◽  
Lower Class ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
Building Structures ◽  
Performance Category ◽  
Code Provisions

Evaluation of life safety risks to facility occupants, public, and the environment that may result from earthquake events involves both building structures and equipment supported from these structures. But, it is the seismic design of building structures that typically receive the bulk of the attention from the code committees of the national professional organizations and the regulatory authorities. For safety related equipment in nuclear facilities (e.g., Seismic Category I equipment in nuclear power plants and Seismic Performance Category 3 and 4 equipment in the Department of Energy facilities), the seismic design and analysis guidelines and acceptance criteria are well established. But, for Nonseismic Category equipment in nuclear power plants and Seismic Performance Category 1 and 2 equipment in Department of Energy facilities, these have not yet been developed to the same level of completeness and rigor. The code provisions and guidelines available today for these lower class/categories of equipment are briefly, but critically discussed here, along with a comparison of the results of the application of these code provisions.

Seismic Design Forces. I: Rigid Nonstructural Components

2006 ◽  
Vol 132 (10) ◽  
pp. 1524-1532 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. P. Singh ◽  
L. M. Moreschi ◽  
L. E. Suárez ◽  
E. E. Matheu
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Nonstructural Components

Strength Demand Issues Relevant for the Seismic Design of Moment-Resisting Frames

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 415-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo A. Medina ◽  
Helmut Krawinkler
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Brittle Failure ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Shear Forces ◽  
Moment Resisting Frames ◽  
Weak Beam ◽  
Moment Resisting ◽  
Nonlinear Static ◽  
Current Code ◽  
Code Provisions

This paper deals with the evaluation of strength demands relevant for the seismic design of columns that are part of moment-resisting frames. Regular frames with fundamental periods from 0.3 sec. to 3.6 sec. and number of stories from 3 to 18 are investigated. An evaluation of the relationships between strength demands (e.g., story shear forces, story overturning moments, and moments in columns), ground motion intensity, fundamental period, and number of stories is the focus of this paper. The results from this study demonstrate that the magnitude and distribution over the height of maximum axial and shear forces in columns exposed to severe earthquakes often are not adequately estimated by current seismic design and analysis procedures (e.g., the nonlinear static pushover). Moreover, the potential of plastic hinging in columns is high for regular frames designed according to the strong-column/weak-beam requirements of current code provisions, and more stringent strong-column/weak-beam criteria appear to be called for. The presented results are intended to provide guidance for improvement of seismic design provisions to avoid brittle failure modes in columns of moment-resisting frames.

The Effect of Seismic Design Methods on Design Eccentricities in Building with Planar Irregularities

2015 ◽  
Vol 764-765 ◽  
pp. 1149-1153
Author(s):  
Kwang Ho Lee ◽  
Seong Hoon Jeong ◽  
Seung Woo Han ◽  
Kang Su Kim
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Amplification Factor ◽  
The Other ◽  
Lateral Stiffness ◽  
Design Codes ◽  
Dynamic Amplification Factor ◽  
Accidental Eccentricity ◽  
Aspect Ratios ◽  
Dynamic Amplification ◽  
Code Provisions

Seismic provisions have utilized design eccentricities to reduce planar irregularities in lateral stiffness of buildings. In calculating a design eccentricity, the dynamic amplification factor may be applied either to accidental eccentricity or to both inherent and accidental eccentricities according to design codes. In this paper, different code provisions and their impact on torsional responses of buildings are investigated using example buildings with various aspect ratios and eccentricities. It was found that dynamic amplification is underestimated if the inherent eccentricity is small, when buildings are designed by seismic provisions using dynamic amplification factors for both to inherent and accidental eccentricities. On the other hand, the design eccentricity determined by applying the dynamic amplification factor only to accidental eccentricity reflects torsional amplification accurately.

Seismic Design Forces. II: Flexible Nonstructural Components

2006 ◽  
Vol 132 (10) ◽  
pp. 1533-1542 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. P. Singh ◽  
L. M. Moreschi ◽  
L. E. Suárez ◽  
E. E. Matheu
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Nonstructural Components
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document