What building mass should be applied for 2D analyses?

AI Thread Summary
For a 2D analysis of an 8-storey steel frame structure using NZS 1170.5:2004, it is essential to determine how much mass from the original 3D structure should be included to ensure realistic results. A common approach is to assign gravity loads to the 2D frame, considering half the spacing distance between frames if the structure is regular. For a more accurate method, distribute the uniform gravity loads from the 3D structure to the nearest beams, while typically excluding mass from columns and bracing, except for their self-weight. It is crucial to include appropriate loads, such as dead loads and a portion of live loads, based on the seismic code. Engineering judgment is necessary to adapt these principles effectively for the analysis.
Sukhi
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am performing a 2D analysis on a steel frame structure that is 8 storeys high using NZS 1170.5:2004 (New Zealand Standard for Earthquake Actions). How much of the original 3D structure's mass should be added to the 2D frame to make the analysis realistic? How should this mass be distributed?
Thank you.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Sukhi said:
I am performing a 2D analysis on a steel frame structure that is 8 storeys high using NZS 1170.5:2004 (New Zealand Standard for Earthquake Actions). How much of the original 3D structure's mass should be added to the 2D frame to make the analysis realistic? How should this mass be distributed?
Thank you.
It looks from your other thread like you are taking a class in modeling for mechanical/civil engineering? Can you say more about the class and the projects?
 
berkeman said:
It looks from your other thread like you are taking a class in modeling for mechanical/civil engineering? Can you say more about the class and the projects?
I am doing a research project where I have to apply Numerical Integration Time History Analysis to a steel building. Although in other structural design codes I have found different ways by which 3D mass can be applied to 2D, I can't find the same for the New Zealand Standards. It would be greatly appreciated if you can help me with this.
Thank you.
 
It appears that your real question should be "How should this be done in accordance with the New Zealand Code?" which is best answered by contacting the New Zealand code authority.

PS If you are actually located in New Zealand, it is a beautiful country and you all have my greatest sympathy for the recent devastating South Island earthquake and its ongoing aftershocks.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
You have to use enginnering judgement on this. If the 3D structure is regular, that is with identical 2D frames, with equal spacing between them, bracing is evenly distributed (or doesn't exist), the loads are uniform at any level etc, then a first approach would be to assign to the 2D frame, the gravity loads, at either side of the frame (up to the half spacing distance). Doing so, you assume that no framing exists in the perpendicular direction, but normally this is not against safety.

For a more robust method, you have to distribute the uniform gravity loads of the 3D straucture to the nearest beams, and then collect for each beam the mass that is assigned to it. Normally no mass is assigned to column elements and bracing, other than self weight.

Also pay attention which loads contribute to the mass. Normally the dead loads and a part of the live load is included for seismic analysis, but that depends on the seismic code.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top