www.www.buonovino.com

[cdeshpan]

I would like to thank the e-conference organizers, and
Prof. Durgesh Rai for sharing with us the draft code.
This code is of great interest and value. Some of my
initial suggestions are as follows:

1. Additional pictures/diagrams are necessary to
explain the various concepts in different parts of the
code: for example, a diagram will be useful to explain
the Section 7.4.1.1 (c) Mazzanines/loft/Sub-floor
bracing or anchorage concepts.

2. Section C5.4 "Using esablished field tests for
materials used" - A cross reference to existing codes
that describe the field tests or recommended field
tests may be necessary. It could be in a tabular form.

3. Strengthening section seems somewhat constricted to
me. For example, the supplemental isolation (Section
8.3.1). I feel that if this is recommended in case of
even a few structures, then some technical references
must be provided to direct the user to additional
sources of information on that subject.

-Chitra






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted via Email

[avkashikar]

Instead of using 0.67 as constant reduction factor for reduced usable life
it appear to be more logical to use unity load factors for seismic load
combination. If both load factor of 0.67 and occupancy risk factor of 0.75
are used, the combined factor becomes 0.5. which means we are taking half
the seismic force compared to new building. Is it OK? Instead of this if
we adopt unity load factor for seismic load combination, it is like
designing for ultimate strength without any additional safety factor.
One more reduction in seismic forces can be change in damping
corresponding to stress level for which we are designing. Damping value
of 7% to 10% can be used for reassessment, which will reduce a seismic
force to major extent.

Regards,
Arun Kashikar
TCE Consulting Engineers, Mumbai

Posted via Email