DEFINITION OF RAPT CRACKED
DEFINITION OF RAPT VERIFICATION
DEFINITION OF RAPT CODE

Agent666 or someone from NZ might be able to help with guidance on sources. Designers need to study earthquake design logic before trying to apply it, and that requires good text books.

DEFINITION OF RAPT CODE

The code does not teach earthquake design. RE: Structural Wall' definition AS3600-2018 rapt (Structural) 16 Dec 19 21:34

DEFINITION OF RAPT CRACKED

Cracking the columns might be conservative for the Core box design, but if you've got 2-3m long blade walls cracked down so the core does the work, you need to first justify how it's cracked, and second think about the consequences of it actually cracking - does the wall fail? The whole building doesn't need to collapse in an EQ for it to be considered failed. Regarding cracking of elements, I would think if the member is uncracked then the analysis should be done using gross member stiffnesses, as the code states. With the new amendment coming to AS3600, can we expect some rewording of things for better clarification? I think this is important as, unfortunately, EQ analysis and design is brand new to a lot of very experienced engineers. The two you've answered are my impressions as well. Any chance I can get that third response privately? I was afraid you'd have an answer along those lines, though thank you for the contributions you can give. RE: Structural Wall' definition AS3600-2018 rapt (Structural) 15 Dec 19 20:30 Provisions for columns in section 10 must be used for design in this instance including detailing requirement. Although small relative to the demand which goes to primary LFRS elements, this shear and flexure must be considered in design.ДЄ site soil classification of D and E prohibits the simplified method of 11.5 for compression force design. I'm looking at a model now with a blade columns each with about 1% of the total shear demand on the building from Earthquake.

DEFINITION OF RAPT VERIFICATION

You may confirm that no additional reinforcement other than the minimum reinforcement required for columns (or wall if forces are small) after considering axial, shear and flexural demands, but this cannot be omitted from the verification process. I think it is prudent that the engineer considers these as lateral elements for analysis. Residential buildings tend to have blade columns with vertical element widths generally governed to slot within apartment party walls. In my experience, the common criteria used for engineers to start considering a vertical element as a wall is an aspect ratio of 4:1. When you perform an analysis in Etabs or similar building analysis package, it is common to reduce the stiffness of slab elements and column elements further than the values given in AS3600 (columns = 0.3 to 0.8 and slabs = 0.4). Concrete buildings in Australia are likely to have fire stairs and lift cores that act as the primary LFRS.

Most in-situ vertical element within a structure will experience some component of lateral force when subjected to an earthquake (or wind event). RE: Structural Wall' definition AS3600-2018 rapt (Structural) 12 Dec 19 02:16 I understand the code is not meant to be a detailed how-to guide and their must be engineering judgement, but from my experience unless the code says 'can do A, cannot do B', option b will be a viable solution for some. I think both these points are too vague and not explicit enough in their intent, and will be exploited to get away with using simplified wall deisgn in excess and to continue ignoring seismic design. 'Not to be constructed on sites with soil classification of De or Ee, AND where subjected to earthquake design actions'ДЄre those two limits mutually exclusive? Can you have walls that are constructed on De soil but not subject to EQ? Is that even possible? Can you have walls on Ce soil classification that are subjected EQ actions? Section 11.5.2(b) limitations for the simplified wall design:

Subject to the above, if you have 'gravity only' walls, to section 11 in lieu of columns, but a ductile core, is the whole structure ductile or non-ductile? Even if the walls aren't part of the primary lateral system? 'Wall (either load bearing or non-loadbearing) connected to floor diaphragms that attracts horizontal earthquake and wind design actions'.ДЄt what point is a wall considered to 'attract' EQ and wind actions? If we're talking about 'gravity only' walls in a structure that has a stiff core and other lateral resisting shear walls, these elements might attract just a fraction of lateral actions - but they still attract some as they are connected to the diaphragm, but can you argue they aren't part of the lateral system and therefore do not need to comply with section 14, save for drift consideration? Or does pretty much any vertical compression element that is not explicitly a 'column' now count as a 'structural Wall' and must comply with 14.4.4.3?

Section 14.2.10 defines a structural Wall as: Just want to get some opinions on the changes to 'structural walls' in new 2018 AS3600.

Definition of rapt