Jump to content
  • Welcome to SEFP!

    Welcome!

    Welcome to our community forums, full of great discussions about Structural Engineering. Please register to become a part of our thriving group or login if you are already registered.

Sohaib Nazar

Ubc Vs Ibc-2003 (For Seismic Calculations)

Recommended Posts

Dear fellows,

i have some queries regarding UBC code and and IBC-2003.

I am carrying out study study in Saudi Arabia, Comparative study for Saudi Arabia maximum and minimum earthquake zones based on UBC and SBC(IBC-2003).

As there is no provision for SBC or IBC in Etabs so I calculated base  shear by hand.(see attached files).Maximum earthquake zoning of Saudi Arabia is 2B according to old SBC(was based on UBC) and S1= 12.6 % and Ss = 43.7 % of g, according to new SBC(based on IBC-2003). There is big difference in values of base shear and lateral forces in both codes.

Please check the files attached.

Can any body suggest and guide me about these results.

(Region 4 in SBC = zone 1 in UBC and Region 6 = Zone 2B in SBC)

 

Also

It is right way to calculate Ss=43.7/100  * 9.81 = 4.26 (which is very big) ?

UBC.docx

SBC.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear fellows,

i have some queries regarding UBC code and and IBC-2003.

I am carrying out study study in Saudi Arabia, Comparative study for Saudi Arabia maximum and minimum earthquake zones based on UBC and SBC(IBC-2003).

As there is no provision for SBC or IBC in Etabs so I calculated base  shear by hand.(see attached files).Maximum earthquake zoning of Saudi Arabia is 2B according to old SBC(was based on UBC) and S1= 12.6 % and Ss = 43.7 % of g, according to new SBC(based on IBC-2003). There is big difference in values of base shear and lateral forces in both codes.

Please check the files attached.

Can any body suggest and guide me about these results.

(Region 4 in SBC = zone 1 in UBC and Region 6 = Zone 2B in SBC)

 

Also

It is right way to calculate Ss=43.7/100  * 9.81 = 4.26 (which is very big) ?

 

All I can understand from your post is that you are doing a comparison between two codes for Saudi and trying to find out quantitative difference of base shear? Also, I believe you want someone to check your numbers?

 

Before you do that you need to understand the differences between UBC and IBC Seismic Design Philosophy; you aren't comparing apples to apples if you just compare numbers. There is a lot different between two codes. Both codes design to a different Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). Considering everything is constant, IBC will give you a higher base shear. Read the attached article:IBC and UBC Comparison.PDF

 

Use the method provided in code to identify your seismic response coefficients. Ss=Ground acceleration at short (0.2 second) period, which will allow you to determine Sms and subsequently Sds. Code outlines the procedure to calculate all these components. I don't know why are you calculating Ss like you did. 

 

Documents attached are result output, and calculation is not attached. Without a calculation, no one knows how you came up with the numbers. My best advice to you, to check your numbers is to compare them with a solved example. You can't go wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attach your calculation and basis of calculation. Like Umar said you don't even need comparative study. Its obvious that new Saudi Code based on IBC will give higher base shears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well this is not always true. Last year I did a similar comparative study in Saudi for one of our projects.

 
UBC-97 gave higher base shear due to the fact that the actual calculated base shear exceeds the maximum allowed value that is independent of time period.
Buildings were in moderate seismic zones and the height of building where the actual base shear was less than the max base shear was 16m for concrete and 18m for steel structures.
These buildings were low rise having 3 stories max.
 
In IBC 2006/ASCE 05 maximum base shear formula has T and actual base shear is constant for all heights. That is the reason max base shear governed  upto 14m height of concrete and 12m height for steel structures.
 
In nutshell IBC 2006 gave us upto 64% reduction in base shear magnitude in concrete and upto 56% reduction in steel buildings as compared to that of UBC-97.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can understand from your post is that you are doing a comparison between two codes for Saudi and trying to find out quantitative difference of base shear? Also, I believe you want someone to check your numbers?

 

Before you do that you need to understand the differences between UBC and IBC Seismic Design Philosophy; you aren't comparing apples to apples if you just compare numbers. There is a lot different between two codes. Both codes design to a different Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE). Considering everything is constant, IBC will give you a higher base shear. Read the attached article:attachicon.gifIBC and UBC Comparison.PDF

 

Use the method provided in code to identify your seismic response coefficients. Ss=Ground acceleration at short (0.2 second) period, which will allow you to determine Sms and subsequently Sds. Code outlines the procedure to calculate all these components. I don't know why are you calculated Ss like you did. 

 

Documents attached are result output, and calculation is not attached. Without a calculation, no one knows how you came up with the numbers. My best advice to you, to check your numbers is to compare them with a solved example. You can't go wrong.

 

The response of Umar Makhzumi is comprehensive, clear and correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The response of Umar Makhzuni is comprehensive, clear and correct.

 

In addition, following should be noted.

It is advisable that all designs in Pakistan adhere to IBC rather than UBC-97, which is now considered defunct.

Use of UBC-97 with latest resistance codes for structural concrete (like ACI 318-05, 318-08, 318-11) and AISC codes with publication dates after 1997 is technically incorrect and must be avoided.

 

I hope that structural design community should adapt to the IBC and the appropriate use of resistance codes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

well this is not always true. Last year I did a similar comparative study in Saudi for one of our projects.

 
UBC-97 gave higher base shear due to the fact that the actual calculated base shear exceeds the maximum allowed value that is independent of time period.
Buildings were in moderate seismic zones and the height of building where the actual base shear was less than the max base shear was 16m for concrete and 18m for steel structures.
These buildings were low rise having 3 stories max.
 
In IBC 2006/ASCE 05 maximum base shear formula has T and actual base shear is constant for all heights. That is the reason max base shear governed  upto 14m height of concrete and 12m height for steel structures.
 
In nutshell IBC 2006 gave us upto 64% reduction in base shear magnitude in concrete and upto 56% reduction in steel buildings as compared to that of UBC-97.

 

 

True, there can be certain cases where UBC gives a higher base shear. However, without knowing basis of study, parameters involved and data points/ no of runs and sensitivity of each parameter quoted results, it hard to conclude. Keeping numbers apart, there are other differences too. IBC considers seismic design category which affects your calculated base shear whereas UBC considers your seismic zone only. While designing a hospital in a lower seismic category, you may end with a higher base shear than for a commercial building with a higher design category, both comparisons being done for IBC.  As I said, it is not an apples to apples comparison, and your results can be different based on what parameters you consider. To me, the whole exercise is pointless, because basis are different. Number crunching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i dont understand why in 2014 we still talk about codes from 90s. I mean its good to have the basis and background how codes developed but we should not be using the old methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i dont understand why in 2014 we still talk about codes from 90s. I mean its good to have the basis and background how codes developed but we should not be using the old methods.

 Agree with Rana Waseem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear All:

[1] Please note that Structural Designers in Pakistan are still using DEFUNCT UBC-97. I am a one person team trying to change this practice.

[2] In addition, by using ETABS, they use UBC-97 and latest ACI & ASCE CODES, which is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2017 at 11:19 AM, zenith.international said:

Dear All:

[1] Please note that Structural Designers in Pakistan are still using DEFUNCT UBC-97. I am a one person team trying to change this practice.

[2] In addition, by using ETABS, they use UBC-97 and latest ACI & ASCE CODES, which is incorrect.

So what you will do,

will you going to change the Pakistan Building Code?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎12‎-‎03 at 5:48 PM, zenith.international said:

Let's develop a group of like minded Engineers and make a petition to PEC and KBCA and ACEP.

I will lead but but need numbers.

Please get your petition ready and we will support you through our forum.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will develop the Text for KBCA bylaws to replace the current clause in Chapter 11 of KBCA by laws. 

 In the mean while need volunteers to develop list of Enginners with email addresses so the revised Text can be sent to them and they Endorse it.

We start with local Bodies, like KBCA and then towards PEC for revising the Building Code of Pakistan Seismic Provisions 2007.

Prof.Dr. Shoaib Ahmad

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Our picks

    • *SEFP Consistent Design*<br style="color:#272a34">*Pile Design*<br style="color:#272a34">*Doc No: 10-00-CD-0005*<br style="color:#272a34">*Date: Nov 21, 2017*<br style="color:#272a34">
       

      This article is intended to cover design of piles using Ultimate Limit State (ULS) method. The use of ULS method is fairly new for geotechnical design (last decade). The method is being used in multiple countries now (Canada, Australia etc). The following items shall be discussed:

      Overview


      Geotechnical Design of Piles (Compression Loads, Tension Loads and Lateral Loads)


      Structural Design of Piles (Covering both Concrete and Steel)


      Connection of Pile with the foundation (Covering both Concrete and Steel)


      Pile Group Settlement


      Things to consider



       

      1. Overview

      Piles provide a suitable load path to transfer super-structure loads to foundation where shallow foundation are not suitable - this can be due to a number of reasons like existing space constraints or suitable soil strata is not present immediately below structure. Other uses can be to meet design requirements like to have reduced settlement etc.

      This article shall cover the use of straight shaft cast-in-place concrete piles and straight shaft driven steel pipe piles. There are a number of additional piles types like belled concrete piles, precast concrete piles, screw / helical steel piles etc but the discussion to choose a suitable pile type is not in the intended scope of this article. The article is intended  to discuss design requirements for straight shaft piles only (both concrete and steel) . The aforementioned topic about pile selection is a very diverse subject and requires a separate discussion on its own.

      Click on the link to read the full article.
       
      • 9 replies
    • I am suppose to design a pile foundation for a machine weighing approximately 50 tons and with an operational loading of 100 tons. 
      I ll appreciate your help in terms of guidance & provision of notes...  
       
      Thank you..
      • 36 replies
    • Material behavior can be idealized as consisting of an 'elastic' domain and a 'plastic' domain. For almost 200 years, structural design has been
      based on an elastic theory which assumes that structures display a linear response throughout their loading history, ignoring the post-yielding
      stage of behavior. Current design practice for reinforced concrete structures is a curious blend of elastic analysis to compute forces and moments, plasticity theory to proportion cross-sections for the moment and axial, load, and empirical mumbo-jumbo to proportion members for shear.

       

      From the book "Design of Concrete Structures with Stress Fields" by A. Muttoni,  J. Schwartz and  B.Thurliman.

       
      • 0 replies
    • Dear Fellow Researchers, Academicians, and research students,

       

      NED University of Engineering & Technology in collaboration with Institution of Engineers Pakistan (IEP) is organizing 9th International Civil Engineering Conference (ICEC 2017) on December 22-23, 2017 at Karachi, Pakistan.

       The congress details are available at its website www.neduet.edu.pk/icec

       Also attached is congress flyer for information and dissemination among your peers.

       Abstracts submission deadline has been extended till October 31, 2017.

      Please click on the link to see the full description.
      • 0 replies
    • AoA all,

      Is it mandatory to do column concreting upto the soffit of the beam in a single pour ?

      What code says about the construction/cold joint location in column ?

      Majority of the contractors are pouring the column concrete upto the soffit of the beam (full height of the column), some contractors leave the column height about 9" to 12" below the beam level and then fill this 9" to 12" column height with the beams & slab concreting. On one site column concreting was stopped at the mid height and the remaining half was filled on the next day.

      Thanks

       

       
      • 5 replies
    • AOA 

      i am facing problems in shear wall design .what are the pier and spandral ?what will be the difference when we assign pier or spandral? without assigning these the shear wall design is incomplete .

      i am taking about etabsv16

      someone have document about shear wall design plz provide it 

      thank you

       
      • 9 replies
    • Salam Members,

      Congratulations to Engineers, PEC has become full signatory of Washington Accord, what are the benefits to Pakistani engineers for this agreement. 

       

      Regards   

       

       
      • 3 replies
    • Please clarify the following confusions one by one:-

       

      1. If we run P-delta analysis in ETABS, then should we ignore stiffness property modifiers for beams and columns? I have heard that if we perform P-delta analysis and apply stiffness modifiers at the same time then the moment magnification process is doubled...?

       

      2. ETABS considers selenderness of a column by applying moment magnification factors. If we run P-delta analysis also, does it mean that the selenderness of column is being over-estimated? I mean once the moments are magnified in P-delta analysis process and again through moment magnification process?

       

      Please help me understand the software myth and clarify above confusions.
      • 1 reply
    • Assalam o alaikum.
      According to ACI 12.5.2,
      development length for fc' = 3000, fy=60000, for normal weight concrete and epoxy less reinforcement, The required development length comes out to be
      for #3 = 8.2 inch
      for #4 = 10.95 inch
      for #6 = 16.42 inch
      for #8 = 21.9 inch
       
      And if in my case, ACI 12.5.3 is not fulfilled, it means now i have to provide ldh as mentioned above. ldh is STRAIGHT EMBEDMENT LENGTH + RADIUS OF BEND + ONE BAR DIAMETER as shown in figure attached. Now my question is, if in my case, main reinforcement of beam is of #6 and #4, minimum column size required will be 18 inch and 12 inch respectively. Lets say by any means, i can not select #4, #3 bars and size of column where bars are to be terminated is 12 inch, how to fullfil this development length???
      • 11 replies
    • Dear all,

      I am trying to design shearwalls through ETABS with temperature load applied over shell. At various location, spandral section fails in Shear due to temperature and piers (sometime in shear, mostly in flexure).  (See Attached Image)

      Certainly all the problem in Shearwalls are due to temperature. I don't want to increase cross section of spandral or pier at some location just due to temperature load case as it will appears non-uniform with rest of the wall. 

      I have seen stiffness modifier affect distribution of forces and also rigid/semi rigid daiphragm assumption. 

       

      Can anybody guide how to properly design the shear wall with temperature load applied in ETABS or share any similar experience. Thanks in Advance.    
      • 15 replies
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.