IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
(OP)
For wind, I used to design with a 150% factor of safety for the overturning of shear walls per code. And sometimes, to simplify calculations, I applied the 150% overturning stability factor to the 0.9D combination for earthquake as well.
Now that we are using 0.6D under the basic load combinations (IBC 2003), it seems that 150% factor is already included. Is that correct? (yes, I did read 1609.1.3 for the alternate load combinations)
Thanks!
Now that we are using 0.6D under the basic load combinations (IBC 2003), it seems that 150% factor is already included. Is that correct? (yes, I did read 1609.1.3 for the alternate load combinations)
Thanks!






RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
I just thought that these informations might help some...
DEAD LOAD FACTORS FOR OVERTURNING FOR WIND AND SEISMIC FORCES:
UBC 1997
DL FACTOR (W) = 0.67 LL FACTOR (S) = 0.9
IBC 2000
DL FACTOR (W) = 0.6 LL FACTOR (S) = 0.6
IBC 2003
DL FACTOR (W) = 0.6 LL FACTOR (S) = 0.6
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
sorry ....
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
I guess we have the same interpretation.
From 1609.1.3 (IBC 2003) the 2/3 factor for dead load are for alternate basic load combinations only. Personally, I believed that alternate load combinations are just a carry over from previous editions of building codes ( I might be wrong on this!) and the basic load combinations are considered to be the prepared load combinations...
nrguades
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
This is taken from Design of Wood Structures - ASD by Donald E Breyer et al...fifth edition based on IBC 2003 pg 2.37
"The design overturing moment (0M) is the difference between the gross OM and 60 percent of the resisting moment (RM). The IBC requires that 0.6 X RM be greater than the OM. In other words, a factor of safety (FS) of 5/3 or 1.67 is required for overturning stability. Notice that in this stability check, an overestimation of dead load tends to be unconservative (normally an overestimation of loading is considered conservative). To obtain the design OM, 60 percent of the RM is subtracted from the gross OM. Up to this point, the DL being used in the calculation of RM did not include the weight of the foundation.
Now, if the design OM is a positive value (i.e., the gross OM is more than 60 percent of the RM), the structure will have to be tied to the foundation. The design OM can be replaced by a couple (T and C). The tension force T must be developed by the connection to the foundation. This tension force is also known as the design uplift force. If the design OM is negative (i.e. , the gross OM is less than or equal to 0.6 x RM), there will be no uplift problem. Should an uplift problem occur, 60 percent of the DL of the foundation plus 60 percent of the DL of the building must be sufficient to counteract the gross OM"
Hope this can clear some confussions on the above topic...
nrguades
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
I was very doubtful that seismic would have as much FS against OT as wind. If you study the load combinations, you will find that the seismic load is multiplied by 0.7, whereas the wind load is not. (1.0 implied). Then, the Dead load resisting moment for either wind or seismic is multiplied by 0.6. However, I could be wrong - I am an old UBC type, and am a bit confused by ther over-use of duelling fudge-factors in the IBC.
Overall, the IBC is more conservative than the UBC. Perhaps the writers of the IBC feel there is more of a chance of engineering error than ever before.
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
I'm not sure what you are impling by your post: it is clear that we use "W" or "0.7E" and "0.6D" but what are you getting at? You think the 1.5 factor of safety is included already or not?
There is more chance of error because the brainiacs-in-charge wrote too long of a code for anyone to want to read the entire thing: so then we run into problems of knowing part of the code but not all.
Somewhere out there are a bunch of code-writers that could use a good shaking.
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
It just occured to me, 0.7 x 1.67 = 1.17 (actual FS for seismic). The reciprocal of 1.17 is 0.86, which is very close and slightly conservative compared to the simple dead x 0.9 for seismic as in the UBC.
Any comments?
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
OK, then the IBC dictates a much larger FS against overturn then the UBC. I still don't get the rationale, because seismic forces vary in direction rapidly.
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
yes, you would use 60% of the dead load of the footing for your resisting moment vs. the wind overturning (0.6D > W, FS =1.0). single column footings often end up too small for this, and you must bury them several feet to get it to work or attach them to other things via grade beams. good luck!
Mike, PE, SE
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
I'm assuming then that the same idea for resistance to uplift would apply.....whatever my uplift reaction from load case 0.6D+W must be less than 60% of foundation and overburden weight. Would you agree?
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
but really, the wind alone is the upward force, and 60% of all the tributary dead is the holdown or overburden weight. anyway, same thing.
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
When you rely on hair-pins to carry the horizontal load from a metal building frame you have to have a floor slab! Most of the time, at least in our area, the floor slab is poured AFTER the building is erected and the roof and wall panels are on (to prevent damage to the slab during construction). That means the hair-pins are not active until the slab is poured and up to strength. So, there is a gamble that the wind doesn't blow and there is no snow on the roof - the two largest components of horizontal loading.
Just one more little headache to think about!
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
I sense your frustration with IBC. I just found another mistake in IBC 2000 Table 2305.3.7.2 pg 558. They indicate a 0% full height sheathing and a 0.33 factor which has been taken out of the 2003 edition. After calling IBC directly you are suppose to check their website for thier ERRATA. Go Figure. IBC should change to "MMM"- Money Making Machine. Just check their publications. Commentary to the Commentary to the Workbook to the Code and no errata. Unreal $$$. BOCA come back please.
RE: IBC 2003: 0.6D vs. 150% factor of safety for stability
My opinion is that the 1.5 safety factor is included in the 0.6. I looked ad nauseam in the IBC for a statement that overturning, uplift, and sliding had to have a 1.5 FS, but couldn't find it, unlike previous model codes.
I don't buy the argument that the 0.6 is to account for common overestimation of loads. I think that's what the original 0.9 was for.
From the practical side, there are many instances (metal building foundations for example) where the design will be absolutely and comletely asinine if 1.5 FS is applied simultaneously with the 0.6 factor.
DBD