weab
Structural
- Jul 7, 2006
- 241
I soon expect to be designing an underground building, small but possibly 2 stories high. The buildings are usually close to walls (ribs), often in corners. The client is OK with continuing deck framing at the column rows in order to attach to the rock walls using rock anchors. If I do this, there is no relative deflection of the floor levels. All the lateral loads go directly into the rock walls.
It would seem that no vertical bracing would be necessary. I would think that if I calculate lateral loads as if this were a braced building, this would be conservative. These lateral loads would only load the deck diaphragms in tension and compression anyway. Does this seem correct? It seems like there is no sway in the building so that the floor levels travel shorter distances per cycle, that is, less load than normal buildings. But for some reason, it seems to me that without the relative flexibility of vertical bracing or moment frames, the deck levels will be subject to more violent movement, that is, more load.
I would like to eliminate bracing and reduce column sizes if possible. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding this? Is my thinking correct?
It would seem that no vertical bracing would be necessary. I would think that if I calculate lateral loads as if this were a braced building, this would be conservative. These lateral loads would only load the deck diaphragms in tension and compression anyway. Does this seem correct? It seems like there is no sway in the building so that the floor levels travel shorter distances per cycle, that is, less load than normal buildings. But for some reason, it seems to me that without the relative flexibility of vertical bracing or moment frames, the deck levels will be subject to more violent movement, that is, more load.
I would like to eliminate bracing and reduce column sizes if possible. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding this? Is my thinking correct?
