The science of statics of solids is based on the view that every load creates internal moments, - intersecting - in the cross-section, and corresponding deformations. I say that these moments, distortions, and shears created by the loading, disappear 1. By deflection of moments into the ground 2. distortions, and shears disappear by increasing the length of the cross-section and the correct dimensioning + the compression of the cross-section. See how I do it In figure 1 there is a frame construction with columns. If you apply the lateral force of the earthquake to it, it will deform as in figure 2 If you put two pre-tensioned walls on it, and their ends are anchored to the ground, there will be no deformation either in the body of the wall or in the nodes of the structure, and without deformation there will be no failures. The moments at the nodes also disappear, the shear moments also disappear, the deformations disappear, the tensile forces also disappear and the failures of the cooperation mechanism of concrete and steel that of relevance disappear. The lateral force of the earthquake has been deflected into the ground.
Will you tell me... Your theory is correct but impractical. 1. An application can be commercialized if it is cost-effective and easy to implement, without the need for a specialized team of people. 2. Today's regulations protect buildings by 99% Therefore, try to contact qualified engineers who deal with special projects, eg bridges, wind turbines, heavy grain silos, fuel etc etc. Reply. The only case to make this method commercially applicable outside of large projects and projects of importance such as hospitals and public busy places where the cost comes second, could be used in heavy-duty prefabs whose cost is low, because they are manufactured, and whose method I propose solves problems such as the height and the number of floors (so they enter, also inside the city) and because my method is more efficient in elongated walls like these prefabs. There are also projects such as wind turbines whose compaction costs are greatly reduced by using anchors.
Η επιστήμη στατικής βασίζεται στη θεώρηση ότι κάθε φόρτιση δημιουργεί εσωτερικές ροπές και τέμνουσες στη διατομή και αντίστοιχες παραμορφώσεις. Λέω ότι αυτές οι ροπές οι παραμορφώσεις και οι τέμνουσες που δημιουργεί η φόρτιση αντιμετωπίζονται
1. Με εκτροπή των ροπών μέσα στο έδαφος
2. Οι τέμνουσες και οι παραμορφώσεις αντιμετωπίζονται με αύξηση του μήκους της διατομής και την σωστή διαστασιολόγηση + την θλίψη της διατομής.
Δες πως το κάνω Στο σχήμα 1 υπάρχει μια κατασκευή πλαίσιο με υποστυλώματα.
Αν της εφαρμόσεις την πλάγεια δύναμη του σεισμού θα παραμορφωθεί όπως στο σχήμα 2
Αν του βάλεις δύο τοιχώματα με προεντεταμένα και πακτωμένα τα άκρα τους στο έδαφος όπως δείχνει στο σχήμα 3 δεν θα υπάρξει παραμόρφωση ούτε στον κορμό του τοιχώματος ούτε στους κόμβους της κατασκευής και χωρίς παραμόρφωση δεν υπάρχουν αστοχίες.
Πάνε και οι ροπές στους κόμβους πάνε και οι τέμνουσες πάνε οι παραμορφώσεις και οι εφελκυσμοί και οι αστοχίες της συνάφειας περίπατο.
Η πλάγια δύναμη του σεισμού έχει εκτραπεί μέσα στο έδαφος.
Θα μου πείτε .... Η θεωρία σου είναι ορθή αλλά ανεφάρμοστη. 1. Μια εφαρμογή μπορεί να γίνει εμπορική αν είναι οικονομική και εύκολα εφαρμόσιμη, χωρίς να χρειάζεται εξειδικευμένο συνεργείο. 2. Οι σημερινοί κανονισμοί προστατεύουν τα κτίσματα κατά ποσοστό 99% Επομένως προσπάθησε να απευθυνθείς σε διπλωματούχους μηχανικούς που ασχολούνται με ειδικά έργα, πχ γέφυρες ανεμογεννήτριες βαριά σιλό σιτηρών, καυσίμων κλπ κλπ. Απαντώ. Η μόνη περίπτωση να γίνει εμπορικά εφαρμόσιμη η μέθοδος αυτή εκτός των μεγάλων έργων και των έργων σπουδαιότητας όπως τα νοσοκομεία και τα δημόσια πολυσύχναστα μέρη όπου εκεί το κόστος έρχεται σε δεύτερη μοίρα, θα μπορούσε να χρησιμοποιηθεί σε προκατασκευασμένα βαρέως τύπου τον οποίων το κόστος είναι χαμηλό, διότι είναι βιομηχανοποιημένα, και των οποίων η μέθοδος που προτείνω τους λύνει προβλήματα όπως το ύψος και ο αριθμός των ορόφων ( οπότε μπαίνουν μέσα στην πόλη ) και διότι η μέθοδός μου έχει μεγαλύτερη απόδοση σε επιμήκη τοιχώματα όπως αυτών των προκατασκευών. Υπάρχουν και έργα όπως οι ανεμογεννήτριες των οποίων μειώνεται κατά πολύ το κόστος πάκτωσης χρησιμοποιώντας τις αγκυρώσεις.
Relevant! Great points for a GREAT discussion.
Warmest regards
Good points to fuel a great discussion. Too often, simplicity and deepness go hand in hand and give rise to breakthroughs in science, art and politics, to only mention three examples.
Simplicity includes everything A simple shake on a seismic base hides deep within it all of Newton's theory. Some simple notes touch us deep inside. The harmonious simplicity of the universe contains within it all science. I will be happy to answer any question you may have
Yes, simplicity includes everything. I have always in mind L. da Vinci's idea (I quote by heart) that "simplicity is the ultimate form of sophistication." In the last analysis, when deep ideas, namely in science, are understood, they tend to appear as extremely simple. The point is to come up with them. The genial Einstein stresses the importance of simplicity for science.
I totally agree Ph. Orlando M Lourenço When you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it yourself.
Yes, Dr. Ioannis Lymperis, when are not able to explain something simply, then it is sure that we don't understand it ourselves. Too often, if not always, the appeal to misconceived erudition is a way to hide our ignorance when a lack of true understanding is the case.
Dear Doctor
Go To
Review on Recent Developments in the Performance-Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures
- March 2016
- Structures 6
- Follow journal
- DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2016.03.001
- Mohd Zameeruddin
- Keshav K. Sangle
"The performance-based seismic design was suggested to overcome the limitations of force-based seismic design methods used for addressing the inelastic behavior and cyclic loading effects in reinforced concrete structures. The suggested method permits buildings to be designed with a realistic and reliable understanding of the risk to life, occupancy, and economic loss that may result from future seismic events. The design has two primary goals: appropriately quantifying the uncertainties associated with the performance evaluation process and satisfactorily characterizing the associated structural damage for direct incorporation into the design or performance evaluation methodology. This study reviewed recent developments in performance-based seismic design by defining the performance objectives (levels), evaluation techniques, and assessment procedures. In addition, the current state-of-practice in performance-based seismic evaluations were compared. In contrast to the performance evaluation procedures of previous studies, in which the pros and cons were highlighted, the performance evaluation procedure of the present study was implemented for force-based design structures. A damage index that was expressed using nonlinear responses obtained in the output of the procedure was introduced. A possible integration of the damage value with the performance level was proposed."
Dear Doctor Sundus F Hantoosh Thank you very much for this nice and instructive article. I will read it carefully. I am not a professor or structural engineer. I am a construction foreman and builder. But I have read a lot about seismic design. I decided to design my own seismic design method. I first found that the designers could not control the inelastic displacement in a large earthquake, and simply manage the failure. I thought for the first time in the world to connect the top level of the structure to the ground by providing a hostile external force that would help the response of the structure to take up the seismic displacements. I want the help of the scientific community to help me prove the usefulness of the method. So far no one has agreed to review my method without me paying a large sum of money, which I don't have.
Too often, we use a confusing language because we have nothing significant to say. The use of such language may be due to some of our deficiencies in our capability of adaptation and resilience. The use of a confusing/confounding language may hide more (i.e., our ignorance) than its reveals (i.e., an understanding of the issue being discussed). The use of a confusing/confounding language also brings to my mind what is called the alchemists' fallacy, for example, to say that we recover from a certain disease because of the fuming liquor of Libavius. See, for this purpose, the following book by the Irish psychiatrist Maurice O. Drury (1974). The danger of words and writings on Wittgenstein. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.
I absolutely agree Ph. Orlando M Lourenço
I'll make it simple.
Inertia is a lateral large force created by the acceleration of the ground I deflect this directly into the ground before it damages the structure I simply bolt the structure to the ground.
See my experiment with an acceleration of 2.41g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoM5pEy7n9Q
See without the method I use what happened to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-X4tF9C7SE&t=59s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZkCKY0EypM
In figure 1. Lateral force A tends to rotate the wall around from joint B as shown in figure 2.
Two component forces are generated during the rotation of the wall.
The upward component D and the oblique component E
The upward component D shall raise forces and the oblique component E shall lower forces at the base which are in contrast to the ground forces L
The upward component D is the cause of the moment C which tends to rotate the wall around joint B as shown in Figure 2.
As shown in figure 3. I draw a force from the ground H due to the footing ratio, and transfer it onto the upper face of the wall N
by means of the tendon which I press against the upper part of the wall cheek.
The upward force D contrasts with the force of the tendon N which it is trying to lengthen.
However, tendon N reacts to its elongation and receives the upward force A and sends it into the ground H
So the horizontal force A creates the moment C which creates two component forces D and E
The tendon picks up force D and sends it into the ground and the cross section of the wall frame picks up force E and sends it into the ground.
In this way, the horizontal force A, the mean of the component forces D and E, is deflected into the ground before it is even propagated over the supporting structure.
With this method there are no moments at the K nodes as shown in Figure 4; because the inertia force D is neutralised
was exterminated by the ground force. When inertia is eliminated in the first place there is no force to harm the load-bearing structure except the bending and base shear which are also eliminated by the large cross-section of the wall and the compression in its cross-section imposed by the tendons themselves.
https://scontent.fath3-4.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/369112842_7098182450194650_8193958454246760695_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=X4VpyaFsErgAX9t4AEo&_nc_ht=scontent.fath3-4.fna&oh=00_AfDFQwzDZN4xe2rP35CH6yA2FKBfWeg3ss7li1zHrkMoEg&oe=64E67E69
Thank you so much Dr. Ioannis Lymperis, for your kind words of agreement, your further clarifications and the links. Thank you also for your experiment and method on inertia. What you say has much to be commended.
Thank you so much Dr. Ioannis Lymperis for your kind words of agreement, your further clarifications and the links. Thank you also for your experiment and method on inertia. What you say has much to be commended.
As for the issue of simplicity and confusing language I want to say the following. Once a USA Prof. delivered a conference at my Dept. on development psychological theories. Some of my graduate students were there attending that conference. At the end of the conference, I asked one of such students what follows: " How much deep you found that conference ". And the student replied: "I found such conference very deep". "Why did you think so? I replied. And the student reply what follows: " I found the conference profound because I didn't understand anything of such conference. Such professor should be very clever" (Sic!)
I think we have much of this under the umbrella of science and the Academia.
As I see it, scientific writing should avoid using confusing language and dispensable jargon.
Thank you Dr. Orlando M Lourenço! There is much that is said so as not to be understood, and much that is understood and hidden under the carpet. Unfortunately, those who have the money fund the research that is in their interest and the real research that affects their interests they fight. The world is not an angelic place and science is controlled by them.
Thank you so much Dr. Ioannis Lymperis! Yes, as you say "There is much that is said so as not to be understood, and much that is understood and hidden under the carpet. Even though science is generally seen as a kind a "sacred cow", too often science is used to hide vested interest and hidden agendas:
Unfortunately, as you say, the world is not an angelic place
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioecology
- Systems Ecology
- Landscape Ecology
- Connectivity