×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

foundation loab comb

foundation loab comb

foundation loab comb

(OP)
Need to know, should i ise the load comb no 5 , 6 & 8 (using omega factors with seismic)as given in cl 14.4.3.2 of asce 7-05 for the overturning/uplift/sliding of the foundations.

RE: foundation loab comb

We've argued about this before in our office.  I don't believe the building code is very clear (someone correct me if I'm wrong)... I believe the intent of the code is to design the connection of the superstructure to the foundation using omega level forces, but it doesn't explicity say to apply omega to the foundation design.  That said, we've been asked by OSHPD "What's the point of designing to forces to be transfered to the foundation if the foundations can't take it?"  Makes sense I guess.  I'd design for omega forces, and no one can question you as being unconservative.  Although depending on the building, it may lend itself to some pretty large foundations.  

RE: foundation loab comb

The point is that the connection may be a brittle, abrupt failure mechanism (thus requiring higher levels of capacity) so that other failure mechanism (which may be more ductile) can occur first and absorb the energy.

RE: foundation loab comb

(OP)
JKStruct is very right in the sense that what is the use of designing the anchors for these amplified forces when you foundation can't take it but as mentioned by JAE, we actually don't want to design our anchor bolts for these amplified forces but do so to keep some margin in the capacity of anchor bolts.
Any other thoughts.
But JAE if you  look that way then what about the section 8.5 of seismic design provisions which states that for high seismic zones don't reduce your anchor bolt capacity by 25% against the clause mentioned in ACI318 app D .

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources