seismic

Antiseismic Systems - Earthquake Protection Systems (seismic stop)

56 posts in this topic

It is a method that uses a mechanism to pontoon nodes of higher levels of longitudinal columns with earth and which dynamically stopping the overturning moment of columns and deflect the lateral load of the earthquake through the vertical support elements to stronger areas and directs them into the ground preventing in this way the appearance of torsional flexural buckling responsible for structural failures on the trunks of bearing elements. Prevents) 1) unilateral tilting (lifting) of the base 2) bending of the column, which both causes responsible for the occurrence of torsional flexural buckling 1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what your anti-seismic device is, but, it does not appear to be part of the structure.  The 'massive' and rigid roof structure and the relatively fixed base pretty much establish the failure observed.  The rigid 'L-shaped' corner columns and the relatively flexible second floor do little to prevent any torsional displacement/failure.  The failures shown on the floor plates are pretty much that would be expected.

 

If you have a viable anti-seismic device then you should approach the seismic engineering experts in the US likely.  Careful, they can be tough/unscrupulous business partners.  They may, however, be able to provide the impetus to successfully launch your product.  I've seen some tuned mass dampers that work well as long as they are maintained.  One of the two most difficult projects I did was a 6 storey parkade in a reasonably high seismic area... the architect didn't want the columns exposed on the outside and the entire perimeter cantilevers 15' (4.5m).  Flexural spandrel beams were used around the perimeter to force a mode(s) of vibration.

 

Just some thoughts...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/12/2016 at 6:22 AM, dik said:

I'm not sure what your anti-seismic device is, but, it does not appear to be part of the structure.  The 'massive' and rigid roof structure and the relatively fixed base pretty much establish the failure observed.  The rigid 'L-shaped' corner columns and the relatively flexible second floor do little to prevent any torsional displacement/failure.  The failures shown on the floor plates are pretty much that would be expected.

 

If you have a viable anti-seismic device then you should approach the seismic engineering experts in the US likely.  Careful, they can be tough/unscrupulous business partners.  They may, however, be able to provide the impetus to successfully launch your product.  I've seen some tuned mass dampers that work well as long as they are maintained.  One of the two most difficult projects I did was a 6 storey parkade in a reasonably high seismic area... the architect didn't want the columns exposed on the outside and the entire perimeter cantilevers 15' (4.5m).  Flexural spandrel beams were used around the perimeter to force a mode(s) of vibration.

 

Just some thoughts...

I hold a patent in America. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9%2C540%2C783.PN.&OS=PN%2F9%2C540%2C783&RS=PN%2F9%2C540%2C783

 

Ιs it possible to control the elastic deformation over the body of bearing elements?

In an earthquake, the columns lose their eccentricity and their bases are lifted, creating twisting in all of the nodes of the structure. There is a limit to the eccentricity, that is, there is a limit to the surface area of the base which is lifted by the rollover moment. To minimize the twisting of the bases, we place strong foot girders in the columns. In the large longitudinal columns (walls), due to the large moments which occur during an earthquake, it is practically impossible to prevent rotation with the classical way of construction of the foot girders.

It is a method that uses a mechanism to pontoon nodes of higher level of constructions with earth and which dynamically deflect the lateral load of the earthquake through the vertical support elements and directs them into the ground controlling in this way the oscillation of the construction which causes elastic deformation responsible for structural failures on the trunks of bearing elements.

The reaction of the mechanism to the raising of the roof of the longitudinal column and the opposing reaction of the at the bottom part of the base, divert the lateral load of the earthquake in the strong vertical section. With this diversion of the lateral load of the earthquake to the vertical columns, the twisting of the nodes is abolished because the lateral loadings of the earthquake are 100 per cent borne along the length of the columns, so it is impossible for them to twist in their main sections.

Experiment 1,8 g  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhkUlxC6IK4

more here http://file.scirp.org/Html/6-1880388_59888.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brief Description of the Invention

The principal object of the hydraulic tie rod for construction projects of the present invention as well as of the method for constructing building structures utilizing the hydraulic tie rod of the present invention is to minimize the aforesaid problems associated with the safety of construction structures in the event of natural phenomena such as earthquakes, hurricanes and very high lateral winds. According to the present invention, this can be achieved by a continuous pre-stressing (pulling) of both the building structure towards the ground and of the ground towards the structure, making these two parts one body like a sandwich. Said pre-stressing is applied by means of the mechanism of the hydraulic tie rod for construction projects. Said mechanism comprises a steel cable crossing freely in the centre the structure’s vertical support elements and also the length of a drilling beneath them. Said steel cable’s lower end is tied to an anchor-type mechanism that is embedded into the walls of the drilling to prevent it from being uplifted. Said steel cable’s top end is tied to a hydraulic pulling mechanism, exerting a continuous uplifting force. The pulling force applied to the steel cable by means of the hydraulic mechanism and the reaction to such pulling from the fixed anchor at the other end of it generate the desired compression in the construction project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My patent reacts differently. Basically, when the roof is connected to the ground through the patent rope, it limits the displacements of the floors (ie the drifts) and thus the intensity, which develops throughout the carrier, is limited.
MEASUREMENT OF ACCELERATION, POWER (F), Moment of inertia
See this video that has frequencies on the screen The 7 Hz frequency is ghosting at the frequency that my experiment had towards the end of the video.
video with frequencies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c8qtIduEHM
My own experiment. The higher frequency is after 2.40 seconds and frequency is queried at the 7 Hz frequency of the other video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoM5pEy7n9Q
So ... In a natural earthquake I did the experiment with a 0.22 cm oscillating amplitude and a frequency of 7 Hz we have ... a = (- (2 * π * 7) ^ 2 * 0,22) / 9.81
3,14x2 = 6,28x7 = 43,96x43,96 = 1932,4816x0,22 = 425,1460 / 9,81 = 43,34g natural earthquake
The specimen in the experiment had a general mass weighing 850 kg. The second floor because of the inverted beam it carries is more pounds than half so I would say it is about 450kg and the ground floor is 400kg So to find the inertia force F first on the ground floor we say ...
F = m.a 400x425 = 170,000 Newton or 170 kN.
and the first floor 450X425 = 191250 Newton or 191.25 kN.
Total force F (Inertia) 170 + 191.25 = 361.25 kN
Moment of inertia
Strength X Height ^ 2
Ground floor 170X0,65X0,65 = 71,825 kN
First floor 191,25x1,3x1,3 = 323,21 kN
Total Inertia Torque 71,825 + 323,21 = 395 kN

The axial loads N (kN) of the vertical tendons for the following cases of virtual residential buildings are provided in a table, in order to deal with a very strong earthquake:
A. Case Design of a building 10.00m × 10.00m, square with nine (9) columns on a 5.00m grid and eight (8) tendons (see Figs A1, A2).
A.1 Ground height 3.50m
A.2 Two-storey, total height 7.00m
A.3 Three-storey, total height 10.50m
A.4 Four-storey, total height 14.00m
A.5 Five-storey, total height 17.50m
A.6 Ex-storey, total height 21.00m

B. Case Plan of a building 20.00m × 20.00m, square with twenty-five (25) columns on a 5.00m canvas and twenty-four (24) tendons (see Figures B1, B2).
B.1 Ground floor height 3.50m
B.2 Two-storey, total height 7.00m
B.3 Three-storey, total height 10.50m
B.4 Four-storey, total height 14.00m
B.5 Five-storey, total height 17,50m
B.6 Four-storey, total height 21.00m

https://s2.postimg.org/r817dnh6x/DSC04323.jpg
https://s2.postimg.org/v4ej9qhmx/DSC04322.jpg
https://s2.postimg.org/euod6dh49/DSC04321.jpg
https://s2.postimg.org/7rghqxjg9/DSC04320.jpg
https://s2.postimg.org/ll4ug5jt5/DSC04319.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the method of designing, clamping the top-level nodes with the ground, I hope to divert the lateral inertial stresses of the earthquake into more powerful areas of the structure than those currently driven. These strong areas have the ability to absorb these tensions (preventing and relieving the relative displacements (ie drifts) and thus the tension that develops throughout the vector is limited) and returning them to the soil from where they came by subtracting in this way, great tensions and failures over the load-bearing structure of the building while ensuring a stronger bearing capacity of the foundation soil. With the appropriate design of wall dimensioning and their placement in suitable locations, we also prevent the torsional buckling that occurs in asymmetrical and metallic high-rise structures. Basically, when the roof is connected to the ground through the patent rope, it limits the displacements of the floors (ie the drifts) and thus the intensity, which develops throughout the carrier, is limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Gurudev
      Hello,
      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.
    • By Ausekle
      Hello!
      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 it´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 it´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!)
      Best Regards,
      Ausekle
    • By CrazyCheese
      Hi all, I came across this recently and thought I'd start my membership here by sharing:
      http://en.midasuser.com/news/news_view.asp?idx=184258&pg=1&sk=&so=&sort=&bid=74&nCat=
      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.
    • By oswaldo
      Hello my name is Oswaldo, I'm doing a bachelor in civil engineering and my question is:
      What is the code with which I can make an anti seismic design of formwork and what type is the recommended formwork for this design.
    • By iihh
      Hello all,
      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