what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
(OP)
I always hear that when you are doing preliminary lateral design for a bldg, you should check that there's no net uplift at the frame column foundation, in other words, make sure that
0.9 D - 1.0 E > 0 and
0.9 D - 1.3 W > 0
But my question is, what's wrong if you have a bit more than zero? What's so evil about 2 kips of net uplift, heck, what's wrong with 30 kips of net uplift?
It's not like your frame column will fly up into space at 1 kip net uplift.
What's wrong with the foundation losing contact with the soil in an earthquake or hurricane, as long as your structure is still stable?
A frame column that has lifted up 0.05" off the soil still has about the same amount of tension in it as a frame column that is still in contact with the soil. It just seems like an arbitrary threshold...as long as you can show thru a P-delta analysis that you are still stable, you should be okay even with net uplift occuring...right?
0.9 D - 1.0 E > 0 and
0.9 D - 1.3 W > 0
But my question is, what's wrong if you have a bit more than zero? What's so evil about 2 kips of net uplift, heck, what's wrong with 30 kips of net uplift?
It's not like your frame column will fly up into space at 1 kip net uplift.
What's wrong with the foundation losing contact with the soil in an earthquake or hurricane, as long as your structure is still stable?
A frame column that has lifted up 0.05" off the soil still has about the same amount of tension in it as a frame column that is still in contact with the soil. It just seems like an arbitrary threshold...as long as you can show thru a P-delta analysis that you are still stable, you should be okay even with net uplift occuring...right?






RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
IBC 2000:
Section 1604.4 - fifth paragraph
"Every structure shall be designed to resist the oveturning effects caused by the lateral forces specified in this chapter."
See also:
1801.2 (references 1605.3 which includes the .6D+W combo)
1801.2.1
1807.2.8.5
1805.4.1.1 (also ref to 1605.3)
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
If I have net uplift of 1 kip, including everything, what's going to happen? It's not going to fly off into space. It's going to detach from the soil a few thousandths of an inch, depending on how unbalanced we are.
Movement is not a no-no for buildings, I disagree. Nothing is infinitely stiff, so we talk instead about limits on those movements.
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
LAWYERS!!!
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
Try it with a balance. Put 1kg on one side and 1kg plus 1g on the other, 0.1% of net uplift, or unbalance. How many thousandths of an inch does each tray move? One, two or several? Does it only move a finite amount or does it keep moving until the physical limits of the scale make it quit? What does that correspond to in a building?
Obviously I need to define what I meant by movement. Elastic and inelastic deformations, both movements of points along a member's length or cross section, is not only acceptable but unavoidable.
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
0.9 D - 1.3 W = -0.1 does not mean that the foundation will move. It means that the Global Safety Factor has decreased and therefore the probability of failure has increased.
We are told that these Global Safety Factors are determined using probabilistic analysis methods. I don't think any proposal to reduce them on an ad hoc basis will be received with much enthusiasm. Further, if you can argue for a reduction of GSF for stability, why not the same for strength?
BTW, I agree with UcfSE. Once you have an unbalanced force the movement will continue (actually accelerate) until a counter-acting reaction occurs, eg. due to shear/racking in the cladding in the example presented. The weight and strength of any slab-on-grade etc. should be utilised in the total resisting weight of course.
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
One example would be interior stud walls with gypsum board sheathing adding to lateral stability.
For the uplift situation we are discussing here, I can see that the slab-on-grade that surrounds a column/footing might add an uncertain amount of additional "hold-down" capacity that we don't account for.
But even with all these secondary effects, as an engineer I don't feel good about counting on them, or diminishing my levels of safety just because they are there.
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
I agree with apsix that SOG strength should be utilized as well.
To answer your question, UCFSE, about what your scale corresponds to in a building, I say nothing in any real building... don't you think the unbalanced upward force would redistribute to upward pressure on the underside of the slab on grade, to adjacent frames, to frames on the upper stories, etc? Basically wherever significant stiffness is provided.
The slab on grade would have to be punched through upwards to have the foundation fly up like in your balance example (unless of course there's an isolation joint around the column, then you couldn't depend on the SOG holding the fdn down)
It just seems like in an earthquake or hurricane situation there's a lot of paths where the unbalanced force could flow if the bottom of the foundation separates from the soil upon which it bears.
ANYWAY...My point is that in a typical building, if you can prove that your unbalanced load flows to other parts of the building, without causing any individual element to collapse, and that you are still stable in 3D after load redistribution, what's the big deal if you have lifted off the soil a bit? ...you can use upward pressure on your SOG underside, frames on the upper stories to redistribute to other frame columns and therefore other foundations, etc. No?
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
I have no trouble in including portions of the SOG, edge beam, wall etc that can be reasonably assumed to contribute to the total weight. I would be amazed if this approach would result in failure, there is no need to be over-conservative in my opinion.
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
How often do you have uplift on a frame that would not also occur in an adjacent frame? Yes, it's possible, we know this, but how typical? Did you really design all the members to redistribute forces and deformations, some perhaps excessive? That may require some inelastic deformation in some members or connections. This is acceptable in seismic events for energy dissipation and because designing members to be elastic is not our typical construction in the US, but would you want to allow this for any uplift at all no matter the source? That implies repairs are necessary.
There are many things that add to increased capacity just because of their presence. I'm aware of these of course like most others. The sog is an example, interior walls are another, as noted by JAE. Exactly how reliable are these things, unless you have gone to the effort and expense to design and detail these extra systems and the owner has gone to the expense to pay for it, and the contractor installed it as you intended? IMO we are not in the business of counting dubious items which have an unsubstantiated reliability, especially with rudimentary and insufficient "engineering" to back up their use. If it's there, great, that's one more unworried "z" I'll get at night. How can you quantitatively describe the effect of these systems, including a prescribed amount of reliability or confidence?
At the end of the day, if you allow a net uplift on your column, you have violated code and your standard of care. If you are willing to accept all of that and the benefits outweigh the risk, by all means, do what you want. I just don't agree. It's good to discuss things though
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
Now if the SOG cracks badly due to uplift from everyday service loads, then no, that's not okay.
How often do you have uplift in a frame but not in an adjacent frame? That can happen very easily. If you have a torsional irregularity in your building, the code tells you to use a certain eccentricity for your seismic load application, so you could have your lateral point load a lot closer to one braced frame than the other braced frame... also, the adjacent braced frame may be supporting more dead load, especially if we are talking edge frame vs. interior frame. So a frame in one bay could pretty easily have net uplift while a frame a couple bays over might have no net uplift
I too wouldn't suggest using partition walls, etc for stiffness because it's so hard to quantify, but the SOG, other frames, etc., yes, I think you could use those pretty easily to justify load redistribution, and it would take some work but it wouldn't be that bad... If you could save adding a frame or two it could be worth the effort.
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
I think detailing a structure to transmit forces between bays would be excessive and unusual and would probably cause more issues than it would solve. Typical construction in my area is not detailed such that this would work without excessive deflection and damage. Who knows though, when you try it on your building, come back and let us know how it worked out. It's an interesting thought at least.
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
I said in my previous post that cracks @ ultimate level wind are acceptable. If you don't let things go inelastic at ultimate level that's a huge overdesign.
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
That being said, if you are in a 120mph zone and a hurricane with 3-s gusts of 120mph or less floats in, you should remain elastic.
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
Can your diaphragm accommodate this redistribution (connections and shear capacity)? Are you going to have excessive drift? Are you going to rain brick down on people running out of the building? All things you must consider.
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
I am not sure you have to remain COMPLETELY elastic under a design hurricane as long as you can prove the building can withstand the sustained load of the event. I guess you could go through the system and figure if the footing and slab lifted up off the ground, then there is force redistribution through the girders and frame above (if there is a moment frame above), subsequent hinging and redistribution into the columns etc., but it is really not worth it I don't think.
We can't really predict the actual uplift forces in a design event all that well and I think it is too much trouble to do all this, and my budget is too small as it is.
I guess my question would be what are the deflection/cracking/repair limits under a hurricane event? We have drift for seismic and serviceability deflections for all kinds of wind on elements and service wind drift, but what about design level wind? Without researching this myself yet, I think hippo may be technically right but practically wrong, if he is still able to prove force balance in the end for a design wind uplift event. (I have probably shaken the bees nest around here again).
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
If you lived in a trailer/mobile home, would you tolerate any net uplift? Or would you like to have your home properly anchored down to resist any uplift/overturning?
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
Kidding!
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
Your statements scare me!
What alternative load paths exist that will stop the building turning over? What will stop the building continuing to move (or even accelerate) once it has started moving?
We are engineers, and as such we need to justify our designs in a scientific manner, not just write them off saying: I can believe that...
I can only think that you are referring to the calculated net uplift rather than the actual net uplift (under the theoretical loads). If there are additional dead weights that have not been taken into account, then take them into account.
I have used 10 times the thickness of the slab each side to resist the uplift and have even added the downwards component of the internal pressure on this same area, but I have always been able to avoid net uplift.
csd
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
Redistribution of loads due to redundancy....if you look through the posts carefully you will see specifically what we are visualizing. I'm not saying that it would be easy to quantify, but certainly, no one is talking about believing it with no specifics, or writing things off.
Why do you use 10 times the thickness of the slab on each side? That seems a bit arbitrary...actually the portion of SOG weight you can consider towards uplift resistance should be the footing size in plan + a bit more due to the shear friction angle of the soil between the underside of the SOG and t/ftg.
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
Sorry if I was a bit blunt.
I see what you are talking about in the case of an internal column in a grid. It would only be applicable if you had a tiff element over that would transfer the stress elsewhere.
The 10x is based on the fact that slabs usually span 20 times depth for floors. The top mesh in a floor slab means that it has some ability to cantilever out beyond the soil pressure cone.
csd
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
What happens when the frame column starts to lift off? Does this not increase the fundemental building period which in turns drops the "dynamic earthquake force". Remember these forces are cycling back and forth it is not as if you have a constant force pushing to the left/right causing the overturnng, as soon as the frame lifts off the force drops off the force changes direction and away you go the for the next few cycles.
food for consumption.
regards,
bkgd
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
In regards to seismic controlled frame design, the current codes actually makes uplift the yield mechanism. My frames are design to be elastic at 1.4E, however, uplift is only required to be checked at 1.0E. Does this not mean that my footing will uplift before any yielding (and energy disipation) occurs in my ductile frame beams?
Additionally, concern with uplift is different depending on the number of bays within the moment frame. In a single bay frame uplift of the end column results in complete loss of stiffness of that frame and therefore your diaphragm will most likely get nailed. In multi-bay frames, uplift of the end column results in loss of the end bay only and now the first interior column acts as the end column. This puts very little addtionaly demand on the diaphragm (a little drag force).
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
Now that I better understand your question I will give a much better answer.
It is theoretically okay to allow net uplift on a small number of footings under ultimate loads if you have analysed the frame to redistribute the loads to the other footings.
As this requires analysing the frame twice, and has a number of possible serviceability implications it is much easier to design the footings to avoid this.
I would also question if there is any benefit as the other footings will need the additional weight to take the additional uplift load.
csd
RE: what exactly is harmful about a little net uplift at a frame column?
...."Note that this indicates uplift will occur. ASCE/SEI7-05 does NOT require that foundation stability be maintained using strength-level seismic forces...."