HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Engineering


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2020, 4:43 PM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
What is the greatest ability of the ground to pull, at a depth of one meter using a c

What is the greatest ability of the ground to pull, at a depth of one meter using a clamping mechanism?

I've been experimenting with my own clamping mechanism I have measurement results and I want to know the capabilities of other clamping mechanisms around the world, to compare the results of my experiment with other ground clamping mechanisms, in a soft ground, at a depth of one meter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2020, 8:43 PM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
The content of this document refers to the applied research of a deep soil anchoring mechanism with the help of tendons without affinity connects the foundation ground with the top edges of the structure.
The result is
a) This connection of the edges of the construction and the ground with the mechanisms of the invention prevents the overturning torque of the structure, and the overturning of the vertical walls. This is achieved by applying a torque of stability to the sides of the top edges of the walls derived from the ground.
b)This connection also stops the bending of the vertical load bearing elements of the structure.
c) Ground anchoring prevents the foundations from being deformed as it strengthens their resistance to downward and upward tensions.
These three causes of deformation turn into brittle failures, the result of which is the collapse of construction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoM5pEy7n9Q&t=9s
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2020, 7:35 PM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
Many researchers and engineers tell me that the explanations I give for my patent are insufficient and that they all need mathematical documentation. I answer them.

Mathematics is well known and can be done by those who have learned it. Simple assumptions of engineering are.

What is not known is what I am saying.

What am I saying. I come up with new methods of planning, explaining how I divert forces and where direct them. Basically I show them the design methods

And some simple mathematics.

The wall is a huge lever arm

To find the rotation of a wall, which is a lever arm, we must first find the force applied to it and multiply it by its distance from the joint of the base.

To find the force which is the force from inertia, multiply the mass of the structure by acceleration.

So, if we have the lateral force of inertia at the upper end of the wall, and the distance from the base joint, then multiplying these two numbers, we find the force of rotation of the wall.

The mathematical result of the force of rotation is divided by the distance the tendon has from the base joint, and we find the force taken by the tendon, which it carries from the top end of the wall into the ground.



Example

The drawing shows three walls of different dimensions in width.

On all walls, a lateral force of 40 tons applies. This force tends to rotate them around the joint of the base tread.

In the first left figure we see a tendon, without affinity, in the center.

The other two walls of the drawing have two tendons each near their sides.

Required. What should be the stability force (A) on the first wall, the stability force (B) on the second wall, and the stability force (C) on the third wall so that they do not overturn?
It must be ... The Torsion Torque <less than the Torque of Stability.

So

Wall stabilization torque (A)> 40X3.5 / 0.6 = 233.3 tonnes

Wall stabilization torque (B)> 40X3.5 / 1.5 = 93.3 tonnes

Wall stabilization torque (Γ)> 40X3.5 / 1.8 = 77.7 tonnes.
Here we observe that, as the distance between the tendon and the joint increases, the inversion torque decreases.
For this reason, we conclude that the invention is more efficient on adhesive walls than on columns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2020, 8:32 PM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
Sesmic experiment conclusions

The biggest problem as they plan today is that they send the forces of the earthquake to the cross sections of the beams, bend their trunk and break them. The invention, by the method of design by which it joins the ground, with all the sides of the walls at their highest level using unrelated stretched tendons, and anchoring mechanisms, diverts seismic forces from the structure, deep into the ground by removing them from the cross sections of the beams. Watch this video experiment at 2.40 minutes and you will see that the beams of the seismic base are lifted up and this shows that I am deflecting the force of the earthquake deep into the ground. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoM5pEy7n9Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2020, 5:48 PM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
Why do they screw experimental specimens with seismic bases?

Why do they screw experimental specimens with seismic bases? Real buildings just step on the ground. Experimental results may not be correct This is done only by my patent which joins the tops of the walls to the ground with anchoring mechanisms and tendons without relevance
Screwed construction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoM5pEy7n9Q
Not screwed (conventional design) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-X4tF9C7SE&t=7s
It is designed to contrast the forces of the earthquake with the loads and the dynamics of the sections of the structure. The earthquake is too strong to deal with in this way. I plan to deflect and return the forces of the earthquake to the ground.
The forces in the cross sections exist without being visible and appear only as a result of the failure.
1) If the cross-sections of the beam and wall are very strong (rigid with diaphragm function) then we will have a complete reversal of the structure when it is high and the earthquake has great acceleration and duration. Either this is my experiment or it happens in normal sized constructions. So it is a mistake to just put them on the ground.
2) If the cross sections are elastic in large earthquakes after leakage they pass to a point of breakage and there is a collapse of the structure.
In the first two cases the loads of the construction are activated to break the cross sections.
3) If the cross-sections of the walls are large and the beams have elasticity and we fasten after first pre-stressing the sides of the walls with the ground with tendons without relevance, then neither cat nor damage for obvious reasons of engineering. The magnitudes of the earthquake are sent back to the ground and do not activate the static loads.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Wh..._seismic_bases

Last edited by seismic; Sep 7, 2020 at 6:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2020, 2:27 PM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
To civil engineers Some questions

QUESTIONS
1) It is known that anything that is overturned is screwed onto something solid to prevent it from tipping over.
Why civil engineers do not screw the sides of the walls on both sides, with the ground?
The overturning of the walls deforms beams and walls until it breaks them;
Do you like to break concrete?
2) Bending is a second deformation factor that breaks the cross sections of the bearing elements.
It is known that the bilateral pre-tensioning of the sides of the walls when they have suitable cross-sections eliminates the bending.
A combination of strong ground anchorage and at the same time pre-tensioning of the sides of the walls from their upper levels with tendons without relevance would stop overturning and bending which are the only causes of deformation and we know that deformation and failure are interrelated concepts.
Do you want distortion and failures?
3) Intersecting If in the cross section of the wall we impose compressive intensities of 70% of the breaking factor, we increase the strength of the cross section by 40%.
Why do you use the mechanism of relevance as the main reinforcement and not tense walls?
4) We all know that deformation creates inelastic failure.
We mentioned the overturning of the wall and the bending of its trunk as causes of deformation and failure of all load-bearing elements.
However, deformation and even very serious can occur due to inhomogeneous subsidence of the soil.
The ground is inhomogeneous, by nature, with different support strengths at each base.
Soil sampling is required at each base foot, and if necessary soil compaction is required to increase the soil's ability to support the base.
However, due to cost, it is rarely applied and if it is applied, it is done only in great projects.
5) The non-prestressed connection of the sides of the walls with the ground diverts the seismic intensities, leading them on the cross sections.
The prestressed connection of the sides of the walls to the ground from the top level with unrelated tendons diverts the seismic intensities, leading them into the ground.
Why not apply this design?
No more excuses.
The absolute seismic system and the method that follows ensures little deformation and no failure as it controls the overturning and bending of the wall, increases the resistance of its cross-section to cut, ensures sample ground control before the construction of the project, and creates a very strong support strength of construction after compacting the foundation soil.
These are all fundamental laws of engineering, and you continue to design wrong.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/To...Some_questions

Last edited by seismic; Sep 13, 2020 at 7:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2020, 11:35 PM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
Triple seismic protection in one carrier for absolute seismic protection.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2020, 11:05 AM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
For reflection on seismic technology

Earthquake is a natural periodic event that destroys lives and property. It does not matter when it happens, since it does happen. The science of civil engineering around the world tries to keep constructions upright. To achieve this it tries to bring in opposition to the seismic forces of the earthquake opposing forces coming from the construction. It is understood and accepted by all that any force that resists the force of an earthquake is desirable because we all know from physics that equal and opposite forces balance. I make a suggestion to those who write the anti-seismic regulations, and for some unknown reason they do not listen to me. For the first time in the world, I propose that this force that resists earthquakes should not only come from the dynamics of construction but also from an external factor, that of the ground. This external force can by itself balance the forces of the earthquake or work with the forces of construction to balance the forces of the earthquake together. It is at least very strange that they refuse to consider this proposal of mine. I accuse them at least of impartiality and irresponsibility. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperi...?paperid=59888

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhkUlxC6IK4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2020, 6:14 PM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
An industrial product has the same specifications. The constructions, however, differ from each other and each have different needs and different concerns.
Also..The soils are inhomogeneous due to their natural composition and have different strengths.
Also .. the mechanism with the tendon and the ground may lose their dynamics after a strong earthquake or over time.
There are also existing structures that need seismic reinforcement
There are too many unbalanced factors that can cause disaster in most modern seismic structures. Basically, the factors that determine the seismic behavior of structures are numerous, and in part probable. (The direction of the earthquake is unknown, the exact content of the seismic excitation frequencies is unknown, its duration is unknown.) Even the maximum possible accelerations given by seismologists, and determine the seismic design factor, have a probability of exceeding more than 10%. These unbalanced factors when combined all together cause large deformations in the structure which create from inelastic leakage failures to beyond their breaking point and we have the collapse of structures. According to modern regulations, the seismic design of buildings is based on the requirements of adequate design and plasticity. The inevitable inelastic behavior under strong seismic excitation is directed at selected elements and failure mechanisms. In particular, the lack of good design of the nodes and the clearly limited plasticity of the elements lead to fragile forms of failure. In short they inevitably manage failure which they cannot control because they cannot control deformation.
1) If the anchoring mechanism is placed in a continuous brickwork construction (without columns) it keeps the consistency of the bricks. 2) If the anchoring mechanism is placed on all the sides of the reinforced concrete walls by connecting with partial pre-tension.. using tendons without relevance, joining their upper end and the ground together ... then we stop ....
a) the overturning of the wall.
b) the bending of its trunk.
c) the critical area of ​​shear failure. d) The torques at the nodes.
e) returns deflects seismic forces into the ground Basically we stop the deformation of the building and in this way we stop the failure. The ground mechanism successfully receives up and down loads on both soft and rocky soils
If the soil is liquefied then go drilling deeper.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2020, 7:15 PM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
The three schools of seismic design.

The truth is that I rewrite the seismic technology of constructions from the beginning, for the following reason.
Several years ago there were two schools of civil engineering. Their dispute was whether a) the structures should have great flexibility or if they should b) be rigidly constructed with great dynamics.
a) Elastic structures have the privilege of storing seismic energy in their cross sections and returning it reduced when they return to their original position. They return it reduced due to the fact that the friction that develops in the grains of their structure during the bending of their trunk converts the kinetic energy into thermal and thus there is partial seismic damping. If the displacement is large then inelastic displacements are created, which means that they do not return to their original position after bending and show leaks with obvious cracks, which also release more seismic energy. Too large displacements drop the structures.
b) Rigid structures are those that have very large walls instead of small cross-section columns.
They show low seismic damping because they do not bend much but are durable because they have dynamics. For example, rigid constructions are prefabricated entirely of reinforced concrete.
The problem with rigid high-rise structures is that they are easily overturned due to rigidity.
When they are overturned, the entire area of ​​the base of the building is raised, losing its contact with the ground that is supported.
As a result, the unsupported loads of the building create reciprocal torques at the nodes and break the walls or overturn the entire high-rigid structure.
Eventually the school of civil engineering prevailed, which wanted elastic and plastic constructions.
Research was done and anti-seismic regulations were written which are followed by civil engineers.
And I come and tell them, the method to stop the overturning of rigid structures.
I just tell them to screw the rigid structures to the ground.
If they do this we will have defeated the earthquake because these rigid structures have dynamics without being overturned.
I write history in seismic technology again.
This has surprised everyone because it changes everything.
And when I say everything I mean that it changes all the mathematical calculations that solve constructions today.
It changes the sufficient design of the nodes and the planned plasticity of the structures. And it gives jobs to geotechnicians.
This is why I have enemies and friends for my patent. All civil engineers understand what I'm just saying, very few are trying to adapt to the new research which is based on simple assumptions of engineering. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhkUlxC6IK4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2020, 10:48 AM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
Method and mechanism of seismic force deflection. From the construction they are driv

A reinforced concrete wall, when its trunk is bent, one side is compressed and the other is stretched. That is, one side shrinks and the other grows. There is a point in its cross section where compression and tension have the maximum force. This point is the critical failure area. This point is responsible for the brittle failures of the structures in the earthquake. If we stop the wall bending we will eliminate the critical failure area. Is there a design method to stop the bending and the critical failure area? Yes there is. As we said the stretching side grows. If with an unrelated tendon we apply transverse compressive forces, at the highest level of the cross-section of the wall side, (on the stretching side) greater than the tensile forces then we have stopped the bending and the critical failure area. One problem was solved. Fine now we have a rigid wall in terms of the lateral force of the earthquake without a critical failure area. Like a rigid wall that is, its overturning moment will be transmitted through the nodes where it is connected to the beams, on their trunks and after bending them easily as rigid as it is, it will break them. Another problem? There is a solution? Yes there is. If the protruding unrelated tendon that stops bending does not stop at the base foot of the wall, but extends and anchors into the ground, then the forces of the earthquake are deflected into the ground. The knots will not present great torques, capable of breaking the beams. For this reason I do not connect the base sole with the ground but I join the upper ends of the sides of the walls with the ground with tense tendons without relevance. The reason is that with this method I stop both the torque of the joints coming from the bend, and the critical failure area of ​​the wall. The critical failure area of ​​the walls is created in the cross section of the wall which is close to the base. This creates a potential difference in the adhesion of the reinforcement and the concrete. With the method of the invention, the tense unrelated tendon which is both anchored to the ground and the upper end of the wall, there is no potential difference or critical failure area. The problem of deformation with fringe failures is solved! In addition, the imposition of compressive stresses on the cross-section of the wall succeeds in increasing the strength of its cross-section in the developing shears, increases the active cross-section, improves the trajectories of the oblique tensile force and reduces the cracks. The ground anchor mechanism increases the strength of the ground so that it can accept higher compressive loads.
As we see in the figure
https://scontent.fath4-2.fna.fbcdn.n...1e&oe=5FC4220F
The earthquake forces an accelerated displacement at the base of the structure on (A) The structure refuses to follow the accelerated displacement thus creating a force in the opposite direction of this inertia the (B) The force (B) directs to the joint (1) which goes to rotate the wall. During the rotation the upward force is created (2) This force is received by the tendon (3) and sent to the ground.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Me...nto_the_ground
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2020, 10:49 AM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
Method and mechanism of seismic force deflection.

A reinforced concrete wall, when its trunk is bent, one side is compressed and the other is stretched. That is, one side shrinks and the other grows. There is a point in its cross section where compression and tension have the maximum force. This point is the critical failure area. This point is responsible for the brittle failures of the structures in the earthquake. If we stop the wall bending we will eliminate the critical failure area. Is there a design method to stop the bending and the critical failure area? Yes there is. As we said the stretching side grows. If with an unrelated tendon we apply transverse compressive forces, at the highest level of the cross-section of the wall side, (on the stretching side) greater than the tensile forces then we have stopped the bending and the critical failure area. One problem was solved. Fine now we have a rigid wall in terms of the lateral force of the earthquake without a critical failure area. Like a rigid wall that is, its overturning moment will be transmitted through the nodes where it is connected to the beams, on their trunks and after bending them easily as rigid as it is, it will break them. Another problem? There is a solution? Yes there is. If the protruding unrelated tendon that stops bending does not stop at the base foot of the wall, but extends and anchors into the ground, then the forces of the earthquake are deflected into the ground. The knots will not present great torques, capable of breaking the beams. For this reason I do not connect the base sole with the ground but I join the upper ends of the sides of the walls with the ground with tense tendons without relevance. The reason is that with this method I stop both the torque of the joints coming from the bend, and the critical failure area of ​​the wall. The critical failure area of ​​the walls is created in the cross section of the wall which is close to the base. This creates a potential difference in the adhesion of the reinforcement and the concrete. With the method of the invention, the tense unrelated tendon which is both anchored to the ground and the upper end of the wall, there is no potential difference or critical failure area. The problem of deformation with fringe failures is solved! In addition, the imposition of compressive stresses on the cross-section of the wall succeeds in increasing the strength of its cross-section in the developing shears, increases the active cross-section, improves the trajectories of the oblique tensile force and reduces the cracks. The ground anchor mechanism increases the strength of the ground so that it can accept higher compressive loads.
As we see in the figure
https://scontent.fath4-2.fna.fbcdn.n...1e&oe=5FC4220F
The earthquake forces an accelerated displacement at the base of the structure on (A) The structure refuses to follow the accelerated displacement thus creating a force in the opposite direction of this inertia the (B) The force (B) directs to the joint (1) which goes to rotate the wall. During the rotation the upward force is created (2) This force is received by the tendon (3) and sent to the ground.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Me...nto_the_ground
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2020, 1:26 PM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
According to modern regulations, the seismic design of buildings is based on the requirements of adequate design and plasticity. The inevitable inelastic behavior under strong seismic excitation is directed at selected elements and failure mechanisms.
In particular, the lack of adequate design of the nodes and the clearly limited plasticity of the elements lead to fragile forms of failure.
In short, they necessarily manage the failure which they can not control because they can not control the large deformation resulting from the large displacement of the ground with characteristics of high acceleration, large oscillation width and seismic duration.
They basically send forces to the nodes, which divide them into the cross sections of the trunks of the elements of which they are composed.
Conclusion
The strength of a structure depends on the numerous unbalanced coefficients and in part random factors of the earthquake, and on the strength of the sections. (The direction of the earthquake is unknown, the exact content of the seismic excitation frequencies is unknown, its duration is unknown.) Even the maximum possible accelerations given by seismologists, and determine the seismic design factor, have a probability of exceeding more than 10%.
What do I do with the design proposal.
I just deflect the seismic intensities in the ground.
How?
With the method of designing, pre-tensioning and anchoring the sides of the walls from their upper ends to the foundation ground, using unrelated tendons, which have at the ends ground anchoring mechanisms as well as anchoring and pre-tensioning mechanisms, I hope to bend the inclinations. and to transport them through the tendons and the vertical large and strong cross-sections of the walls into the ground, preventing and preventing their turning and bending of the trunk, which cause the deformation of the bearing organism which is directly connected with the failures of the construction in earthquake.
The compaction of the soil mechanism at the same time ensures a stronger bearing capacity of the foundation soil. With the appropriate sizing design of the walls and their placement in appropriate places, we also prevent the torsional buckling that occurs in asymmetric and high metal structures.
The good thing about the design method I suggest is that it does not negate the existing seismic design method but has the ability to amplify it so effectively that together they can defeat any earthquake.
The fact that I send the magnitudes of the earthquake into the ground has been proven experimentally.
If you watch this video after 2.40 minutes you will see that the beams that support the seismic base are partially raised.
The beams in the experiment represent the ground and after they are partially raised it means that the stresses are deflected - they return to the ground and do not go to the cross sections of the beams to break them.
In the second video which follows the existing design method and does not have the anchoring mechanism collapses.
Pay attention to the cross sections at the nodes that break at a much lower acceleration.
Question
Why are you still planning like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoM5pEy7n9Q&t=29s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-X4tF9C7SE&t=8s
The patent works statically like a prestressed valley bridge. Why? ... the patent works better on reinforced concrete walls than it does on columns? Answer. Works best on elongated walls for three reasons a) On the pillar we can place only one anchoring mechanism, while on the walls we place more anchoring mechanisms, one on each of its many sides. More anchor mechanisms, more earthquake response force. b) The pillar is a huge lever. To find the overturning force of the column, multiply the force by the distance. Example. If the pillar receives at its upper end a lateral force of 10 tons and the distance of the force from the base is 3 meters then the tipping force is 3x10 = 30 tons. The wall If we have a wall with dimensions 3 meters high and 2 meters wide and apply a lateral force of 10 tons at its highest point, the tipping force will be ... height X force / width That is 3X10 / 2 = 15 tons. Conclusion. the mechanism receives less tipping force on the walls than it receives with the columns. c) The cross-sections of the reinforced concrete of the vertical bearing elements are more stressed in compression when it has the patent. By increasing the cross section of the vertical elements of the bearing body, ... the ability of the reinforced concrete to receive compressive forces increases. Elongated walls usually have a larger cross section than columns, so they are more resistant to compressive forces. For the above three reasons, the elongated walls have a higher performance with the patent than the columns. Another reason is that the walls do not bend as easily as the columns so they have little deformation and even increased resistance to shear.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2021, 5:37 PM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
The new design method solves seismic problems of structures

Critical failure area is the cross-sectional area of a rod that breaks when bent.
In this area that breaks, a compressive tension is created on one side of the rod and a tensile tension on the other side.
We know that the compressive tendency is created when two opposing forces tend to compress a body and the tension is created when two opposing forces tend to lengthen a body.
Let's take the tensile. We said opposite forces in a different direction. Nice!
Somewhere at the point of intersection of the rope these opposing forces must separate their direction. If a rope is pulled by 10 people at one end and ten other people at the other end, the rope will break in the middle between these two groups of people.
This area where the rope will break is the critical failure area.
The critical failure area receives the greatest stresses and is the point at which the opposite tensile forces separate their direction to lengthen the body.
That is, if two groups of people pull a rope, another is the direction of the forces of these people pulling from the right and another of these people pulling from the left.
The rope - reinforcing steel, is very strong because it withstands tensile.

The hands try to pull the rope and if the force is great they can not because they can not withstand the friction or otherwise the shear stresses that develop on the surface of the rope and hands.
That is, the mechanism of relevance is destroyed by the high resistance of the rope (or reinforcing steel) to tension.
What does Potential Difference mean?
The friction between the hands and the rope as well as the force developed on the left side where only one person pulls one end of the rope is not the same as that developed on the right side when more people pull. So there is a potential difference in the forces and the mechanism of relevance.
Relevance
The cooperation between concrete and steel is achieved through the mechanism of relevance. When we say the mechanism of relevance we mean the combined action of the mechanisms which prevent the relative sliding between the bars of the steel reinforcement and the concrete that surrounds them. The mechanism of the connection consists of the adhesion, the friction and in the case of steel bars with embossed shape, the resistance of the concrete which is trapped between the ribs. <The combined action of these mechanisms creates a radial development of shear stresses applied to the concrete and steel interface.> When these stresses reach their limit value, the correlation mechanism is destroyed, with the concrete breaking along the steel bars, and the steel detaching from the concrete.
After what has been mentioned above, let 's talk practically It is often more difficult in a research to identify problems than to find the solution. Steel withstands tensile and concrete withstands mechanical compression.
A reinforced concrete wall when it receives lateral external seismic loads creates a force of its overturning and a bend in its trunk.
In both cases of bending and compression, one side of the wall receives compressive loads and the other side tensile loads.
The concrete takes the compression on one side of the wall and the steel the tension on the other side of the wall.
The cooperation of concrete and steel is achieved through the mechanism of relevance.
Shear stresses are created on the interface of the two materials.
Here we see that the concrete receives the compressive strengths of the wall but also receives strong shear stresses from the steel that pulls it.
The question is whether the concrete withstands the strong shear stresses imposed on it by the pull of steel? No it can not withstand and for this reason we have the pulling or otherwise slipping of steel through the concrete, and the destruction of the coating concrete around the steel.
That is, if you put steel in butter, there will never be cooperation because butter does not withstand the pull of steel.
If you put more pieces of steel in the butter or concrete you will have greater strength; Is it a Question?
Bending always creates tension on one side of the wall, and a critical area of failure.
What do we mean by critical failure area? Mechanical stress is created when two forces are opposite and tend to compress the body and tensile is created when two opposite forces tend to lengthen the body. The critical failure area is the area where the compressive and tensile forces separate their direction.
In this area of the wall cross-section (the critical failure area) the maximum intensities are created and the result is that the failure is created in this area.
In a beam the main critical area of failure due to bending, appears in its center while in a high-rise construction of a high-rise building the critical area of failure appears in the cross section of the wall near the base.
This means that there is a potential difference in the adhesion of concrete and steel as well as the forces are greater, from the critical failure zone and above that of the critical failure zone and below.
It is as if we have ten people pulling a rope on one side and one person pulling on the other. Potential difference is created at both ends of the rope in friction and traction
Combine now the potential difference I mentioned, with the inability of the concrete to absorb the shear forces that develop on the steel and concrete surface, to understand the inability of the two materials to work together, which use the co-operation mechanism of relevance.
There is something worse that develops on the walls, and that is the lever arm mechanism, created by the relevance mechanism.
Lever arm is any pillar or wall that extends from the base to the roof. We know that the lever arm of the wall, lowers large torques at the base which are impossible to receive without failing the lower cross sections of the load-bearing elements.





Conclusion
1) The multiplication of the stresses created by the wall lever arm mechanism, 2) in combination with the difference in traction potential and the difference in forces developed around the critical failure area and 3) the inability of the concrete to pick up the Shear forces developed on the concrete and steel surface create a combined explosive failure resulting in the destruction of the the mechanism of relevance. The shear failure occurs both in the coating concrete and in the entire cross section of the wall near the base. See the photo.

The forces that develop in the structure during the oscillation caused by the earthquake, exist but appear as a result of the failure. The response of structures to seismic shifts depends on where we plan to deflect or otherwise drive the developing seismic forces. Modern seismic design regulations use cross-sections of load-bearing elements to resist seismic forces.
That is, they send forces to the cross sections. If the earthquake has a high acceleration and duration and the construction does not have mechanisms for damping seismic energy, then the construction will not stand in this earthquake.


It is a design error of modern regulations to direct seismic forces only on the cross sections of the bearing elements. Some of the seismic forces could be absorbed by mechanisms that convert seismic kinetic energy into thermal energy and designed to deflect seismic forces out of the structure by driving them into the foundation soil. This design requires union all the upper edges of the siding walls, with the foundation soil, using anchoring and seismic damping mechanisms. ( two in one )
This design method could work together with the cross sections of the supporting elements to increase the response of the structure to seismic forces.
The solution to the mentioned problems
There are two main forces that contribute to the destruction of the building. The others are their components. One force comes from the earthquake, which the earthquake imposes on the structure down at its base because it displaces it with an acceleration (a) and the other from the inertia of the mass of the building. These two forces together create the overthrow of the walls and even the overthrow of the whole building, which I try to stop by imposing opposing forces with the help of the anchoring mechanism, which forces the anchoring mechanism take them from the ground.
See the figure.

The displacement of the ground (A) creates the inertia force (B) which creates the overturning moment of the wall (Γ) with the help of the joint which allows the rotation. This tipping moment creates two forces. The force (1) which is directed through the cross section of the wall diagonally down to the joint and balances with the reaction of the ground The other force is upward (2) and rises from the cross section of the other side of the wall. The upward force (2) contrasts with the static loads of the structure and creates tensile strength.
I place a tendon (3) which freely penetrates the side of the wall as well as the length of a bore under the sole of the base. The lower end of the tendon is anchored to the ground using an anchoring mechanism, and the upper end of the tendon is anchored to the top level of the side of the wall with a screw.
I take a force from the ground and transfer it to the highest level of the wall of the wall so that this force opposes the upward force (2) and prevents the wall from tipping over and its trunk from bending. This stops the deformation of the whole construction.
If we control the deformation we will not have failures. It is like putting a finger on the top of the wall to stop the wall from tipping over. If it is useful we can impose prestressing loads on the cross section of the wall. But this is not very necessary if we do not want to lose plasticity or part of it. Without tension there is no bending, there is no critical failure area.
Without relevance there is no shear failure (on the concrete-steel surface) due to the tensile strength of the steel. Without torque of the wall and bending of the trunk, there are no large moments in the nodes. There is no longer a potential difference.
Concrete receives only compressive forces and steel only tensile forces.
With the method of designing, prestressing and anchoring the sides of the walls from their upper ends to the foundation ground, using unrelated tendons, which at the ends have ground anchoring mechanisms as well as prestressing mechanisms, I hope to change the direction of forces and to transport them through the tendons and the vertical large and strong cross-sections of the walls into the ground, preventing them from turning and bending the trunk, which cause the deformation of the bearing organism which is directly connected with the construction failures in the earthquake. In any case, this extra reaction that the cross-sections need to successfully deal with the earthquake could be derived from the proposed design methodology.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2021, 5:44 PM
seismic's Avatar
seismic seismic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ISLAND OF IOS CYCLADES
Posts: 107
The new design method (solves seismic problems of structures)

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._of_structures

in PDF
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Engineering
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:52 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.