20 Results
View Results:
Sort by:
The ASCE 7-22 Standard [1], Sect. 12.9.1.6 specifies when P-delta effects should be considered when running a modal response spectrum analysis for seismic design. In the NBC 2020 [2], Sent. 4.1.8.3.8.c gives only a short requirement that sway effects due to the interaction of gravity loads with the deformed structure should be considered. Therefore, there may be situations where second-order effects, also known as P-delta, must be considered when carrying out a seismic analysis.
The National Building Code of Canada (NBC) 2020 Article 4.1.8.7 provides a clear procedure for earthquake methods of analysis. The more advanced method, the Dynamic Analysis Procedure in Article 4.1.8.12, should be used for all structure types except those that meet the criteria set forth in 4.1.8.7. The more simplistic method, the Equivalent Static Force Procedure (ESFP) in Article 4.1.8.11, can be used for all other structures.
Wind direction plays a crucial role in shaping the outcomes of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations and the structural design of buildings and infrastructures. It is a determining factor in assessing how wind forces interact with structures, influencing the distribution of wind pressures, and consequently, the structural responses. Understanding the impact of wind direction is essential for developing designs that can withstand varying wind forces, ensuring the safety and durability of structures. Simplified, the wind direction helps in fine-tuning CFD simulations and guiding structural design principles for optimal performance and resilience against wind-induced effects.
Both the determination of natural vibrations and the response spectrum analysis are always performed on a linear system. If nonlinearities exist in the system, they are linearized and thus not taken into account. They are caused by, for example, tension members, nonlinear supports, or nonlinear hinges. This article shows how you can handle them in a dynamic analysis.
The response spectrum analysis is one of the most frequently used design methods in the case of earthquakes. This method has many advantages. The most important is the simplification: It simplifies the complexity of earthquakes so far that the design can be performed with reasonable effort. The disadvantage of this method is that a lot of information is lost due to this simplification. One way to moderate this disadvantage is to use the equivalent linear combination when combining the modal responses. This article explains this option by describing an example.
The “Modal Analysis” add-on in RFEM 6 allows you to perform modal analysis of structural systems, thus determining natural vibration values such as natural frequencies, mode shapes, modal masses, and effective modal mass factors. These results can be used for vibration design, as well as for further dynamic analyses (for example, loading by a response spectrum).
Modal analysis is the starting point for the dynamic analysis of structural systems. You can use it to determine natural vibration values such as natural frequencies, mode shapes, modal masses, and effective modal mass factors. This outcome can be used for vibration design, and it can be used for further dynamic analyses (for example, loading by a response spectrum).
In RFEM 6, seismic analysis can be done by using the Modal Analysis and the Response Spectrum Analysis add-ons. Once the spectral analysis has been performed, it is possible to use the Building Model add-on to display story actions, interstory drifts, and forces in shear walls.
Seismic Analysis in RFEM 6 is possible using the modal analysis and the response spectrum analysis add-ons. As a matter of fact, the general concept of the earthquake analysis in RFEM 6 is based on the creation of a load case for the modal analysis and the response spectrum analysis, respectively. The standard groups for these analyses are set in the Standards II tab of the model’s Base Data.
RF-/DYNAM Pro - Equivalent Loads allows you to determine the loads due to equivalent seismic loads according to the multi‑modal response spectrum method. In the example shown here, this was done for a multi‑mass oscillator.
The National Building Code of Canada (NBC) 2015 Article 4.1.8.7 provides a clear procedure for earthquake methods of analysis. The more advanced method, the Dynamic Analysis Procedure in Article 4.1.8.12, should be used for all structure types except those that meet the criteria set forth in 4.1.8.7. The more simplistic method, the Equivalent Static Force Procedure (ESFP) in Article 4.1.8.11, can be used for all other structures.
The response spectrum analysis is one of the most frequently used design methods in the case of earthquakes. This method has many advantages. The most important is the simplification: It simplifies the complexity of an earthquake to such an extent that an analysis can be carried out with reasonable effort. The disadvantage of this method is that a lot of information is lost due to this simplification. One way to mitigate this disadvantage is to use the equivalent linear combination when combining the modal responses. This article explains this option by describing an example.
Both the determination of natural vibrations and the response spectrum analysis are always performed on a linear system. If nonlinearities exist in the system, they are linearized and thus not taken into account. Straight tension members are very often used in practice. This article will show how you can display them approximately correctly in a dynamic analysis.
In order to consider inaccuracies regarding the position of masses in a response spectrum analysis, standards for seismic design specify rules that have to be applied in both the simplified and multi-modal response spectrum analyses. These rules describe the following general procedure: The story mass must be shifted by a certain eccentricity, which results in a torsional moment.
As gravity loads act on a structure, lateral displacement occurs. In turn, a secondary overturning moment is generated as the gravity load continues to act on the elements in the laterally displaced position. This effect is also known as "P-Delta (Δ)". Sec. 12.9.1.6 of the ASCE 7-16 Standard and the NBC 2015 Commentary specify when P-Delta effects should be considered during a modal response spectrum analysis.
- 001541
- Results
- RFEM 5
-
- RF-DYNAM Pro | Natural Vibrations 5
- RF-DYNAM Pro | Equivalent Loads 5
- RF-DYNAM Pro | Forced Vibrations 5
- RSTAB 8
- DYNAM Pro | Natural Vibrations 8
- DYNAM Pro | Equivalent Loads 8
- Concrete Structures
- Steel Structures
- Timber Structures
- Process Manufacturing Plants
- Power Plants
- Buildings
- Dynamic and Seismic Analysis
- ASCE 7
RFEM offers the option to perform a response spectrum analysis according to ASCE 7-16. This standard describes the determination of seismic loads for the American market. It might happen that the P-Delta effect has to be considered due to the stiffness of the entire structure in order to calculate the internal forces and carry out the design.
In a multi-modal response spectrum analysis, it is important to determine a sufficient number of eigenvalues of the structure and to consider their dynamic responses. Regulations such as EN 1998‑1 [1] and other international standards require the activation of 90% of the structural mass. This means: to determine so many eigenvalues that the sum of the effective modal mass factors is greater than 0.9.
Result combinations exported from RF‑/DYNAM Pro – Equivalent Loads are generated by superimposing the results from the individual modal responses. For this, the SRSS rule can be used as "equivalent linear combination". When result combinations are used in RF‑/STEEL, two options are available for calculating stresses. In the first option, the results from the result combinations are used directly. This is done line by line, for each maximum and minimum controlling internal force. In the second option, stresses are determined from the individual load cases. The quadratic superposition rule is then performed again in RF-/STEEL.
The modal results of a response spectrum analysis are combined with quadratic combination rules, and in RF‑/DYNAM Pro, the SRSS and the CQC rules are available. The default setting modifies the quadratic expressions into equivalent linear combinations. The advantage of this option is that the corresponding internal forces keep their signs and are often much smaller, compared to the standard SRSS or CQC rules. The standard SRSS and CQC rules are on the conservative side and the "equivalent linear combinations" are recommended.
As of version X.04.0096, RF‑/TIMBER Pro also allows you to design other material categories such as softwood, hardwood, and glulam timber as a member in compliance with EN 1995‑1‑1. The design spectrum has been expanded for the material categories LVL, Plywood, OSB, Particleboard, and Fiberboard. In order to facilitate the selection in the materials library, there is another function for targeted filtering by plate or wall stress.