Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]
Re: 1997 UBC Seismic
[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: Re: 1997 UBC Seismic
- From: Sadre <Sadre(--nospam--at)aol.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 11:50:16 EDT
May 2, 1998 Re: Omega Factor in Seismic Provisions of the 1997 UBC On April 27 George Barclay wrote: "In Section 1630.1.1, there is a new seismic force amplification factor "Omega" that is required in Em equation (eq. 30-2), "estimated maximum earthquake force that can be developed in the structure.....It is not clear when to use this Em." Dear George: As you know, the SEAOC Seismology Committee drafted these Provisions which are also reflected in the 1996 Blue Book, Appendix C. The Omega Factor is similar to the (3/8)Rw in the 1994 UBC which was used as an amplification factor for design of elements or components subject to the maximum expected force that could be delivered into the system (i.e., bracing connections, steel frame columns, discontinued elements under lateral force resisting systems, etc.) so its application is (and was) limited to specific cases as outlined in material chapters and Section 1612.4. It was never intended to use Omega in base shear force assessment for all elements of the building. Perhaps a significant contribution in the 1997 UBC is to separate the Delta (max) and Omega, both of which used to be represented by (3/8)Rw. So whether you were designing for building separations, deformation compatibility, or connection design, one would use the same factor where as now maximum displacements and maximum forces are being represented differently. I hope this helps, Ali Sadre, SE, Past Chairman SEAOC Seismology Committee
- Prev by Subject: Re: 1997 UBC Seismic
- Next by Subject: 1997 UBC Seismic
- Previous by thread: RE: 1997 UBC Seismic
- Next by thread: 1997 UBC Seismic
- About this archive
- Messages sorted by: [Subject][Thread][Author][Date]