Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
Can any one tell me what are the codes for design of steel structure in Egypt.
Also how to account for seismic load i.e., seismic zonal map, soil condition, PGA, method of analysis etc.?
When I searched it on google, I found few research paper but no official code or link for the code?
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
I find a couple of the instructions in Annex E to EN 1998-5 ("Simplified analysis for Retaining Structures") a bit confusing. Does anyone have any reflections or advice in order to help me understand EC's point of view regarding the two following issues?
1) Why does the sign convention for term (1-kv) not match between the expression for calculating the force Ed (expression E.1) and the expressions for calculating the seismic inertia angle, teta (expressions E.6, E.13 and E.16). One might interpret it as follows: if (1-kv) is used for calculating the seismic inertia angle, then (1+kv) should be used in the final step of calculationg the force acting on wall and vice versa. This does not seem logical (same direction of vertical acceleration should be used throughout each analyzed case of pseudostatic analysis, i presume?) and it is in contradiction to what all other litterature that i have consulted (USACE, Steven L. Cramer among others) suggest. Is it just a typo? Perharps not a big thing, but i fear that this might confuse some engineers who are new in the field of seismic design (like myself) if they were to follow the code.
2)EC have introduced a "simplified" expression E.3 for calculation K_AE when the conventional Mononobe-Okabe formula does not provide a solution (when limiting values for horizontal seismic cofficient (kh) and/or angle of friction are reached which results in imaginary values for the square root term in the equation). Somehow, I find it difficult to accept as an appropriate approach to the problem. In fact, if, for instance, kh is gradually increased, the K_AE value as calculated accordnig to the conventional Mononobe-Okabe formula will increase as well until the formula reaches itÂ´s limit of validity region. If one then uses expression E.3 acc to Eurocode instead, the K_AE-values will then start to decrease for increased kh. So far i have only seen this approach in EC, no other litterature. Could it be that the justification of such approach is the assumption that when the conventional equation for k_AE has reachtd itÂ´s limit of validity, the calculated maximum value is overly conservativ already? Spontaneously, I would rather use the maximum value of K_AE (just before the imaginary values start to apear) than expression E.3. Or use an alternative method for calculating the force when Mononobe-Okabe metod no longer is valid.
Any reflections on one of the items above or both will be much appreciated! (I realize that this text turned out a bit congested, however, i hope i have managed to express myself clearly enough for those of you who have been in Contact with the mentioned section of EC. Otherwise, please, feel free to ask for clarifications!)
Hi all, I came across this recently and thought I'd start my membership here by sharing:
I've attended one of their sessions before and it was ok. They start with general discussions about concepts and code preferences before moving on to software demonstration (That, I believe, is the real purpose of the series). Still, it's a good way to spend an hour.
I'll start a design of a concrete building according Eurocodes. All foundations will be pad / isolated.
I have some questions about foundation design.
1. Have all foundation to be at one level in seismic region?
2. How much could be the eccentricity relative to the foundation size?
Thank you in advance