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!

*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.

Jobs

ASCE 7-05: Dead Load Reduction 0.6 + 0.7E or W

ASCE 7-05: Dead Load Reduction 0.6 + 0.7E or W

(OP)
What is the basis of chapter 2.4.1 reduction of dead load to 0.6? Some theories are to provide SF against theoretical DL to actual as-built...also to insure overturning SF of 1.5 is met. However, would this combination be needed in a case where DL is well defined and overturning is taken by tenion piling? The piling will have its own SF on failure so is the 1.5 from this load case in addition, therefore, the SF on the piling with 0.6D reduction could be reduced?

RE: ASCE 7-05: Dead Load Reduction 0.6 + 0.7E or W

No - you have to use the load combination.

If you have a tension element that resists overturning, then well and good.  However, this load combination may control the tension in that element.

Yes the 0.6 is a measure of safety against instability that would occur when the stability is based upon some dead load helping.... i.e. 1/1.5 is approximately 0.6.
 

RE: ASCE 7-05: Dead Load Reduction 0.6 + 0.7E or W

gvot - I have had the same issue:  

A real world example where the length of soil anchors required to resist uplift forces on a spread footing was to be determined by a geotechnical engineer.  These soil anchors were to be extended below the footing to form a "breakout" cone of soil whose dead weight was adequate to resist the applied uplift.  The service dead load on the footing was 7,000kips.  The service wind uplift on this same footing was 6,500 kips, so in reality there was no net uplift.  But, using 0.6D+W we provided the goetechnical engineer with a net uplift load of 2,300 kips.  The geotechnical engineer then insisted on using a safety factor of 3.0 for the soil uplift requirements, and therefore provided anchors long enough to mobilize 6,900 kips of soil.  The 6,900 kip resistance was now greater than the original wind uplift not including dead load at all - on a footing that had zero nominal uplift!?!?!?

I think that the above is ridiculous, and I think that the S.F. on the soil anchors in this case and the piling in your case could be reduced somewhat based on engineering judgement when using the 0.6D load combination to recognize the safety factor built into that equation, but that is just my opinion...
 

RE: ASCE 7-05: Dead Load Reduction 0.6 + 0.7E or W

WillisV - agree that with the 0.6D AND a SF of 3 by the geotech is overkill.

 

RE: ASCE 7-05: Dead Load Reduction 0.6 + 0.7E or W

I don't have an opinion on the safety factor used by geotechs. However, this situation is similar to anchor bolt (except the safety factor for typical bolts is 2). The commentary in ASCE 7-05 states: "This eliminates an inconsistency in the treatment of counteracting loads in allowable stress design and strength design. . ." The strength design combinations with 0.9 D seem reasonable. So, the corresponding ASD combinations also seems reasonable to me.

RE: ASCE 7-05: Dead Load Reduction 0.6 + 0.7E or W

@WillisV - Your post ..... "We provided geo with a net uplift of 2300 kips. Geo provided soil anchors to mobilize 6900 kips of soil not including dead load at all..."
ASCE 7-05, ASD Combo 0.6D + 1.0W addresses stability. For stability checks against sliding, overturning, and uplift a FOS of about 1.67 has always been there. Although geo is counting on the weight of soil to counteract uplift, he chose to use 0.33 (1/3) factor based on his design philosophy. Thus we have 0.6D (structural) + 0.33D (geo) + 1.0W.
Given division of design scope, do you think the outcome would have been different had you provided the info in the following format?
Dead load (including overburden on the footing?) = 7000 kips (service)
Wind uplift = 6500 kips (service)
A minimum FOS of 1.67 shall be provided against uplift.

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


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