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!

*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.


Dead Load Reduction for Uplift Resistance

Dead Load Reduction for Uplift Resistance

I am checking the design of a temporary roof structure and am having trouble getting the design to perform against uplift.  I have problems in both the capacity of my connections as well as simply not having enough dead load to resist the applied uplift forces.

I believe I will be able to make the numbers work by going to a shorter MRI and possibly a lower importance factor based on the fact that this is a short term installation (covered deck for a construction office trailer), however I get completely blown out of the water when I consider the load combination of 0.6D + W.

My question is this:  Is it necessary to apply the 0.6 factor to my dead load when my only DL is the self weight of the structure?  I can understand taking a reduction in DL if I had a higher degree of uncertainty in my loads (such as superimposed dead loads) but in this case I have a high level of confidence in my dead load as I am only considering the self weight of the actual structure.  Is there any case when it would not be necessary to consider the 0.6 reduction factor?

RE: Dead Load Reduction for Uplift Resistance

No - the 0.6 factor is not ONLY to account for uncertainty in the amount of dead load, but also to provide an inherent factor of safety against uplift and overturning.


RE: Dead Load Reduction for Uplift Resistance

No need for a Factor of Safety when using 0.6DL.  1.0 is sufficient, resistance/applied load.

RE: Dead Load Reduction for Uplift Resistance

Thanks all, that is kind of what I was thinking as well, and I appreciate the lesson in the legacy codes, it's a little easier to swallow knowing the how the load combinations were developed.  

I agree with your comment WillisV on the unintended consequences of this load combination, seems that it is appropriate to use 0.6D + W when considering overall stability of the structure but for individual members/connections this would introduce an over-conservative design by effectively doubling up on the factor of safety as the various material specifications already include a F.S.  

To further illustrate this, consider section 2.4.4 of ASCE 7-95 that WillisV refers to - this section required a 1.5 F.S. (2/3 DL) for checking structures for sliding or overturning unless the structure was anchored to resist excess movement.  Presumably this exception considered that the anchor would be designed with a factor of safety and that it was unnecessary to double up.

RE: Dead Load Reduction for Uplift Resistance

I think ASCE 7-95 and its associated 1.5 overturning safety factor was out before the 0.6D+W combination occurred in the codes.  The 1.5 SF was replaced by the 0.6D+W combination.


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!


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close