Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's exactly my understanding. It's to stop non-representative favourable stiffness assumptions (eg cracking walls beyond oblivion and unrealistic Soil-Structure interaction).human909 said:Can anybody elaborate for me why exactly the minimum value of 70% is present? Is it just to stop engineers going crazy with their dynamic analysis and getting things wrong?
On the other hand, it's often the case when we model squat buildings in ETABS it'll tell us that the structure is much stiffer than the what the code T1 formula predicts.human909 said:And yet the simplistic T1 height approach means they calculate out to having the same fundamental period
rscassar said:I'm going to make a comments and suggest building separation of adjacent buildings to be greater than the sum of the maximum displacement of both adjacent buildings.
Agent666 said:I always find it amusing how the Australians resist change because you just haven't had your watershed moment in terms of a significant widespread seismic event. It'll come one day.
I don't think engineers here resist change so much as they just don't understand seismic so well to begin with, plus a bit of lamenting the fact that we often cop a bit of blame for when we prioritise safety. Or worse, we cop the blame when the dollar amount being spent on reinforcement goes up for reasons out of our control.I always find it amusing how the Australians resist change because you just haven't had your watershed moment in terms of a significant widespread seismic event. It'll come one day.