PALLAVI DEKA’s Post

I am happy to share our latest publication, which provides important implications related to site characterization using the MASW test and subsequent seismic ground response analysis. Article Link: https://lnkd.in/gwnxNRrc #MASW #surfacewaves #earthquakeengineering #geotechnicalengineering

Understanding Mass Source in ETABS for Seismic analysis When it comes to seismic analysis, defining the Mass Source in ETABS is crucial! As the name suggests, it refers to the mass of the structure, including its self-weight and any additional mass due to surface loads or line loads, typically considering both Dead Load (DL) and Live Load (LL). Why is Mass Source Important? Mass Source is essential for calculating the base shear ofa structure, a key factor in seismic design. 7I IS 1893:2016 Guidelines: As per Clause 7.3.1, for seismic design, we consider full dead load plus a percentage of the imposed load: 25% of LL when the intensity is up to 3.0kN/m2 50% of LL when it exceeds 3.0kN/m2 Accurately defining the Mass Source ensures that your seismic analysis is reliable and adheres to the latest standards.

Do I need to use AISC 341 if my Seismic Design Category is B and the R value is greater than ( 3)?

📌 𝑨𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒆𝒍𝒇-𝑪𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑭𝒓𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒏𝒔   In this study, the performance assessment of #𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟_𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞 with columns of 8m and 6m heights under seismic loads is discussed. For this purpose, two different types of columns with unequal heights are considered: SC rocking columns with or without external dissipators. SC rocking frames at different heights were also modeled in three different cases based on the maximum PT stresses including: a) simultaneous collapse prevention, b) equal drifts, and c) simultaneous uplifts. Among these cases, the simultaneous collapse prevention method was selected as the optimal approach. The results of this comparison, which illustrate the frame’s behavior under various column heights and damping configurations, are presented in the following slides. This analysis is essential for optimizing the design of self-centering frames, enhancing seismic resilience, and minimizing structural damage during earthquakes. 📊 For detailed results, please refer to the slides below. 𝐂𝐖𝐄 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐒𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐛., 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥, 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐝 𝐁𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐡𝐭𝐢 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 #𝐂𝐖𝐄𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐒𝐞𝐞𝐬𝐋𝐚𝐛 #𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐒𝐞𝐞𝐬 #𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐟𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐦𝐧

Hello Bay Area Friends! I hope you can join me and my colleague Francisco Humire, PhD, PE for our presentation on Seismic Analysis and Design of Rigid Inclusions. This joint ASCE San Jose and SFGI meet will be this Thursday June 27th 5:30-8:30 PM at Michaels Restuarant at Shoreline Golf Links in Mountain View, California. Register here: https://lnkd.in/gywhiS_3 Presentation Abstract: Rigid Inclusions (RIs, which also go by other trade names such as DDC, DGC, CMC, etc.) are relatively slender grouted columnar elements typically installed using displacement auger or flighted auger drilling. They are commonly employed as a ground improvement technique to transfer loads through soft compressible layers to competent bearing layers. With little to no longitudinal steel and no confining steel, they are inherently brittle and non-ductile when subjected to bending. This has raised concerns about the seismic performance of RIs, particularly when they are subjected to strong ground shaking in soft or liquefiable soils. This presentation will describe the nonlinear flexural stiffness and strength of RIs and how they differ from piles with conventional ACI 318- based reinforcement. Several Bay Area cases will be used to illustrate methods for analyzing seismic demand and RI response, with outcomes ranging from acceptable to unacceptable performance. The results underscore the importance of seismic analysis and design of RIs at soft or liquefiable sites with high seismicity. 

Seismic Response Factor in Cold-Formed Steel Flat Strapped Lateral Systems By Timothy R. Donahue, P.E. Generally speaking, for a given structure, the higher the seismic response factor (R) value is, the more ductile the structure is and the lower the total seismic load acting on the building. With this concept in mind, one might conclude that reducing the seismic load acting on a building by selecting a more ductile seismic force restraint system (SFRS) with a higher R value would ultimately lower the material cost; however, when evaluating the overall cost implications for what it takes to achieve the increased ductility, the cost savings may not always be realized. This is primarily due to the requirements of overstrength factors in the design and detailing of the straps and other protected components of the SFRS with an R greater than 3. Continue reading: https://lnkd.in/dCwPh_Ra

Seismic resistant non-structural elements in a construction susceptible to crowding

Learn how to evaluate seismic performance using Pushover Analysis based on FEMA and Eurocode 8 standards. https://hubs.ly/Q02YtQ6Y0 Enjoy a 30-minute advanced video lecture and access detailed PPT document. Explore even more specialized content – visit now and elevate your expertise! #civilengineering #civilengineer #structuralengineering #structuralengineer #motivewith #midasit #structuraldesign

Attention seismic specialists! 🚨 Did you know? ASCE 7-16 2.4.5 outlines seismic load effects under section 12.4.3, including overstrength. When applying this section, a minimum omega value of 2.5 for light-frame wood walls (per table 12.2-1 note b), may be reduced to 2.08 (2.5/1.2) per 2.4.5. your thoughts. #SeismicEngineering #ASCE #StructuralEngineering

#post106 🌍 Understanding Mass Source in ETABS for Seismic Analysis 🌍 When it comes to seismic analysis, defining the Mass Source in ETABS is crucial! As the name suggests, it refers to the mass of the structure, including its self-weight and any additional mass due to surface loads or line loads, typically considering both Dead Load (DL) and Live Load (LL). 📊 Why is Mass Source Important? Mass Source is essential for calculating the base shear of a structure, a key factor in seismic design. 🏗️ IS 1893:2016 Guidelines: As per Clause 7.3.1, for seismic design, we consider full dead load plus a percentage of the imposed load: 25% of LL when the intensity is up to 3.0kN/m² 50% of LL when it exceeds 3.0kN/m² Accurately defining the Mass Source ensures that your seismic analysis is reliable and adheres to the latest standards. #SeismicDesign #ETABS #StructuralEngineering #CivilEngineering #IS1893 #EarthquakeEngineering #BuildingSafety #StructuralAnalysis