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: 102
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: 102
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: 102
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: 102
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: 102
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: 102
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: 102
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: 102
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: 102
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: 102
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
     
     
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 4:35 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.