×
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

IBC section 1805.7.2.1 logical error?

IBC section 1805.7.2.1 logical error?

IBC section 1805.7.2.1 logical error?

(OP)
IBC Equation 18-2 for calculating the depth "d" of a non constrained pole foundation seems to have a circular logic. The item "A" in the formula is calculated using "S1" which in turn depends on the depth d.  The equations can be solved by assuming a depth d and varying it until the assumption and final answer converge, but somehow I am not sure this was the intent of the code writers. Am I missing something?

Does anyone have a reference to literature on which this approach is based?  Thanks

RE: IBC section 1805.7.2.1 logical error?

It's always been that way.  As far as literature, I've got a reference to "Pole Building Design" by Donald Peterson 6th Edition (1969) by the American Wood Preservers Institute.  However, I don't have that reference.

RE: IBC section 1805.7.2.1 logical error?

Does it mean that you get an allowable soil pressure based on a rough "d" (i.e. at d/3 depth) and then find the true d and simply make sure your actual d/3 is in the same general type of soil that was originally found?

In other words, don't you generally know what the approximate depth is anyway, with that rough range of "d" you then get the allowable soil pressure for that zone of soil type found near that depth, and then solve for d?

RE: IBC section 1805.7.2.1 logical error?

That's what I always do.

RE: IBC section 1805.7.2.1 logical error?

(OP)
Jed, this is the first time I've used those provisions, so they are not familiar. Jae, yes that was what I was trying to confirm.  Thanks for your replies.    

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