Criticism of Current Seismic Design and Construction Practice in Venezuela: A Bleak Perspective

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 1265-1278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary R. Searer ◽  
Eduardo A. Fierro
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Large Earthquake ◽  
Lateral Force ◽  
Structural System ◽  
Call To Action ◽  
Design Philosophy ◽  
New Buildings ◽  
Typical Design ◽  
Construction Practice

During a recent visit to Caracas, Venezuela, the authors discovered that while Venezuela has adopted a building code with modern seismic provisions (Norma Covenin 1756-98) and does in fact enforce a majority of these provisions, significant conceptual errors in the design of the lateral force-resisting systems of new buildings are recurring on a near-universal level, often as a result of ignoring the potential adverse effects of nonstructural elements on the structural system. In the event of a large earthquake, this design philosophy will have substantial economic and life-safety repercussions unless the typical design philosophy of Venezuelan engineers and architects changes. It is hoped that this paper will serve as a call to action for engineers of all countries to recognize the potential adverse effects of nonstructural elements on the behavior of the lateral force-resisting system.

scholarly journals Seismic design of masonry buildings

1980 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-346
Author(s):  
M. J. N. Priestley
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Shear Failure ◽  
Structural Type ◽  
Lateral Force ◽  
Structural System ◽  
Capacity Design ◽  
Design Code ◽  
Construction Techniques ◽  
Background Material ◽  
Simplified Procedures

Background material to seismic design aspects of the draft masonry design code DZ4210 is presented. The design approach is based on specified lateral force levels appropriate to the available but limited ductility, and on the principles of reinforced concrete section analyses adapted for low material strengths. Ultimate masonry strengths for compression, shear and flexure are based on the construction techniques and extent of supervision rather than on the strengths of the masonry constituents. Design lateral force coefficients for flexural strength depend on the characteristics of the structural system adopted and Structural Type factors (S) are proposed that are more appropriate to masonry structures than current values incorporated in the Loadings Code NZS4203. Shear failure is proscribed by the implementation of capacity design principles, though simplified procedures are allowed for structures with high flexural S factors. Brief discussion is made of so-called non-structural masonry, including veneers, partition, infill and secondary walls.

The Public's Role in Seismic Design Provisions

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 1345-1361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Davis ◽  
Keith Porter
Keyword(s):  
San Francisco ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Large Earthquake ◽  
The United States ◽  
Community Action ◽  
Seismic Safety ◽  
The Public ◽  
New Buildings ◽  
Civil Engineers

Seismic design provisions in the United States reflect structural engineers’ experience, technical capabilities, and judgment of what is in the public's interest. Yet the American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) Code of Ethics implicitly requires civil engineers to make a reasonable effort to elicit and reflect the preferences of the public, whose lives and livelihoods are at stake, when setting performance objectives. The public seems capable of expressing its preferences clearly, as suggested by the San Francisco Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety and the residential code enhancement adopted by Moore, Oklahoma. And at least one public opinion survey suggests that people in earthquake country prefer better performance than the code intends for new buildings, namely, that buildings should largely remain functional or habitable after a large earthquake. The public also seems willing to pay more for new buildings that meet its expectations.

Implementing the performance-based seismic design for new reinforced concrete structures: Comparison among ASCE/SEI 41, TBI, and LATBSDC

2021 ◽  
pp. 875529302098196
Author(s):  
Siamak Sattar ◽  
Anne Hulsey ◽  
Garrett Hagen ◽  
Farzad Naeim ◽  
Steven McCabe
Keyword(s):  
Reinforced Concrete ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Seismic Analysis ◽  
Tall Buildings ◽  
The United States ◽  
Analysis And Design ◽  
Performance Based Seismic Design ◽  
New Buildings

Performance-based seismic design (PBSD) has been recognized as a framework for designing new buildings in the United States in recent years. Various guidelines and standards have been developed to codify and document the implementation of PBSD, including “ Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings” (ASCE 41-17), the Tall Buildings Initiative’s Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings (TBI Guidelines), and the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council’s An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region (LATBSDC Procedure). The main goal of these documents is to regularize the implementation of PBSD for practicing engineers. These documents were developed independently with experts from varying backgrounds and organizations and consequently have differences in several degrees from basic intent to the details of the implementation. As the main objective of PBSD is to ensure a specified building performance, these documents would be expected to provide similar recommendations for achieving a given performance objective for new buildings. This article provides a detailed comparison among each document’s implementation of PBSD for reinforced concrete buildings, with the goal of highlighting the differences among these documents and identifying provisions in which the designed building may achieve varied performance depending on the chosen standard/guideline. This comparison can help committees developing these documents to be aware of their differences, investigate the sources of their divergence, and bring these documents closer to common ground in future cycles.

Lateral Force Resisting Systems Made of Cold-Formed Steel Material: Proposal of Seismic Design Criteria for 2nd Generation of Eurocode 8

2021 ◽  
Vol 885 ◽  
pp. 127-132
Author(s):  
Sarmad Shakeel ◽  
Alessia Campiche
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Shear Walls ◽  
Lateral Force ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Design Criteria ◽  
Eurocode 8 ◽  
Building Structures ◽  
Design Standards ◽  
Design Strength ◽  
Cold Formed Steel

The current edition of Eurocode 8 does not cover the design of the Cold-Formed steel (CFS) building structures under the seismic design condition. As part of the revision process of Euro-code 8 to reflect the outcomes of extensive research carried out in the past decade, University of Naples “Federico II” is involved in the validation of existing seismic design criteria and development of new rules for the design of CFS systems. In particular, different types of Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS) are analyzed that can be listed in the second generation of Eurocode 8. The investigated LFRS’s include CFS strap braced walls and CFS shear walls with steel sheets, wood, or gypsum sheathing. This paper provides the background information on the research works and the reference design standards, already being used in some parts of the world, which formed the basis of design criteria for these LFRS systems. The design criteria for the LFRS-s common to CFS buildings would include rules necessary for ensuring the dissipative behavior, appropriate values of the behavior factor, guidelines to predict the design strength, geometrical and mechanical limitations.

Model Code Design Force Provisions for Elements of Structures and Nonstructural Components

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard M. Drake ◽  
Leo J. Bragagnolo
Keyword(s):  
Building Code ◽  
Code Design ◽  
Structural System ◽  
Nonstructural Components ◽  
Model Code ◽  
Earthquake Design ◽  
Significant Change ◽  
New Buildings

With the publication of the 1997 Uniform Building Code ( UBC) and the 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, there has been a significant change in the earthquake design force provisions for buildings, structures, elements of structures and nonstructural components. Engineers and architects need to become informed regarding a variety of earthquake design force provisions, primarily those published in the UBC and those developed as part of the NEHRP Provisions. Both sources provide design force provisions for the building structural system and separate design force provisions for elements of structures and nonstructural components. This paper describes the development, evolution, and application of the earthquake design force provisions for elements of structures and nonstructural components.

New Seismic Design Specifications of Highway Bridges in Japan

1994 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 333-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuhiko Kawashima ◽  
Kinji Hasegawa
Keyword(s):  
Reinforced Concrete ◽  
Dynamic Response ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Structural Response ◽  
Highway Bridges ◽  
Lateral Force ◽  
Inertia Force ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
Design Specifications ◽  
Recent Earthquakes

This paper presents the new seismic design specifications for highway bridges issued by the Ministry of Construction in February 1990. Revisions of the previous specifications were based on the damage characteristics of highway bridges that were developed after the recent earthquakes. The primary revised items include the seismic lateral force, evaluation of inertia force for design of substructures considering structural response, checking the bearing capacity of reinforced concrete piers for lateral load, and dynamic response analysis. Emphasis is placed on the background of the revisions introduced in the new seismic design specifications.

Seismic response of structural walls: recent developments

2001 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 922-937 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Paulay
Keyword(s):  
Reinforced Concrete ◽  
Seismic Response ◽  
Seismic Design ◽  
Limit State ◽  
Lateral Force ◽  
Structural Walls ◽  
Structural Class ◽  
Response Component ◽  
Displacement Ductility ◽  
Ductility Capacity

It is postulated that for purposes of seismic design, the ductile behaviour of lateral force-resisting wall components, elements, and indeed the entire system can be satisfactorily simulated by bilinear force–displacement modeling. This enables displacement relationships between the system and its constituent components at a particular limit state to be readily established. To this end, some widely used fallacies, relevant to the transition from the elastic to the plastic domain of behaviour, are exposed. A redefinition of stiffness and yield displacement allows more realistic predictions of the important feature of seismic response, component displacements, to be made. The concepts are rational, yet very simple. Their applications are interwoven with the designer's intentions. Contrary to current design practice, whereby a specific global displacement ductility capacity is prescribed for a particular structural class, the designer can determine the acceptable displacement demand to be imposed on the system. This should protect critical components against excessive displacements. Specific intended displacement demands and capacities of systems comprising reinforced concrete cantilever and coupled walls can be estimated.Key words: ductility, displacements, reinforced concrete, seismic design, stiffness, structural walls.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document