I am currently studying about these building codes, and this is very helpful.. Thank you Dr. Franke. Now there is this new 7-22 code, and so I want to know the difference between the two..
I’ve been informed that the cost of performing a site specific analysis is very expensive and difficult to get approved through the building departments I’m familiar with. As a licensed structural engineer, I have incorporated the “penalty” in my analysis (and I too call it a penalty) and find there are many situations where the resulting 20% increase in base shear does not directly demand a 20% increase in seismic connections. Usually, typical seismic connection details for items like moment frames and diaphragms have so many other limitations and minimum requirements that the capacities generally capture the penalty. And if the forces are higher because of the penalty, the increase to the next bolt group or weld pattern, etc., is not 20% more costly. I’m also comparing the type of buildings I’ve engineered to previous seismic codes with the current code. There is more for a structural engineer to calculate by today’s code, but by comparison, the current code with site class D-Default (which contains the penalty) is not too much of a greater design force than the previous code site class D values. Granted, if I can get a soils/geology report with current site class D recommendation, that’s the best I can ask for. Projects are mostly on Southern California. Thanks for the video.
Dear Sir, For Site Class F, the thickness of mentioned soil included the both subsoils under and above foundation bottom or only under the foundation bottom? Thank you so much for excellent lesson.
I am currently studying about these building codes, and this is very helpful.. Thank you Dr. Franke. Now there is this new 7-22 code, and so I want to know the difference between the two..
Interesting. We are waiting for much more. Bundle of thanks.
I’ve been informed that the cost of performing a site specific analysis is very expensive and difficult to get approved through the building departments I’m familiar with. As a licensed structural engineer, I have incorporated the “penalty” in my analysis (and I too call it a penalty) and find there are many situations where the resulting 20% increase in base shear does not directly demand a 20% increase in seismic connections. Usually, typical seismic connection details for items like moment frames and diaphragms have so many other limitations and minimum requirements that the capacities generally capture the penalty. And if the forces are higher because of the penalty, the increase to the next bolt group or weld pattern, etc., is not 20% more costly. I’m also comparing the type of buildings I’ve engineered to previous seismic codes with the current code. There is more for a structural engineer to calculate by today’s code, but by comparison, the current code with site class D-Default (which contains the penalty) is not too much of a greater design force than the previous code site class D values. Granted, if I can get a soils/geology report with current site class D recommendation, that’s the best I can ask for. Projects are mostly on Southern California.
Thanks for the video.
Dear Sir,
For Site Class F, the thickness of mentioned soil included the both subsoils under and above foundation bottom or only under the foundation bottom?
Thank you so much for excellent lesson.
Thanks
Ah bir de ağzını şapırdatmadan anlatsaydın çok iyi olacaktı.