The tipping torque is balanced by one or more stability torques.

The tensile force in the cross section is neutralized by a compressive force.

A cutting force cuts the cross section but is neutralized when the cross section is under compression.

A small square cross section located on a high trunk bends easily.

A large cross-shaped cross section bends slightly.

A large cross-shaped cross section becomes almost completely rigid when we apply pressure to the cross section.

These are given laws of engineering.

The walls of the construction in the big earthquake, receive torques which often exceed three times the weight of the construction.

The walls and beams that are joined together at the nodes, receive torques (M), upright forces (N) (compressive and tensile) which cause bending, and shear (Q)

Civil engineers studying the response of the structure to seismic shifts had to apply compression to the wall cross-sections to increase their ability to withstand shear forces, bending forces, tensile forces, and prevent shear forces. failure of the coating concrete, which occurs due to the ultra-tensile strength of the steel.

I do not understand why civil engineers do not include in the study the imposition of compressive loads on the cross sections of the walls.

The high walls are high-lever arms that would tip over if they did not have the beams (with which they are attached to the joints) to hold them, and connect them to the other elements of the structure.

The beams have a resistance to bending which, if overcome, will break.

The lateral force of inertia creates the moment of inversion on the walls, while the beams react with opposite direction of momentum, in order to achieve balance.

If the overturning torque of the wall is greater than the reverse torque applied by the beam, then the beam will break.

1 + 1 = 2 If the opposite moments of the beams are not sufficient in large earthquakes, we can reinforce them with additional opposite moments, (derived from external factors) so that the sum of the opposite moments of the beam and the external factor is greater than torque of the wall, in order to achieve the desired balance of forces.

The second opposite moment of stability to the moment of inversion of the wall could come if we pressed the sides of the walls from their highest level with the ground.

I do not understand why civil engineers do not include the anchoring of the walls with the foundation soil in their studies.

More Ioannis Lymperis's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions