×
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

Allowable Stress vs. Strength Design

Allowable Stress vs. Strength Design

Allowable Stress vs. Strength Design

(OP)
Hi all,
I've got a question regarding load factors. Say I am designing a free standing sign for wind forces and my governing overturning load combo is 0.6D + 1.0W per ASCE 7-05 ASD. I plan on using concrete blocks to resist any wind loads. To determine the amount of overturning force I must resist I factor the DL of the sign assembly and the WL per the above load combo. This would give me a required load to resist and I would place that amount of concrete block to resist (ignoring the DL reduction to the block and treating it as an "anchor").

Now lets say I have a client that uses strength design for load combo's. I would follow the same procedure except using 0.9D + 1.6WL. But, since I have a fixed block weight it would require roughly 60% more block. Unlike material design I don't get an "increase" in weight by using it's "ultimate strength".

I've always seen Strength Design and Allowable Stress as being approximately equivalent. Would I be out of line if I were to bring the required loads back to ASD levels when determining the amount of block needed?

RE: Allowable Stress vs. Strength Design

I don't think you have it right. Those load combinations should both give you about a similar safety factor for overturning.

ASD 1.0/0.6 = 1.67

LRFD 1.6/0.9 = 1.77

You need to reduce the dead load. If it were considered an "anchor" you still want some kind of safety factor.

When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.

-R. Buckminster Fuller

RE: Allowable Stress vs. Strength Design

In doing your ASD calcs shouldn't you be multiplying the weight of the concrete blocks as 0.6 as well? Counterweighting with a concrete block is NOT an anchor, it is a counterweight.

I bet once you were to adjust your calculations for that 0.6 the amount of concrete blocks required would be very similar from ASD to LRFD.

RE: Allowable Stress vs. Strength Design

From what I understand about LRFD you are utilizing two safety/load factors vs. one with ASD. The added complication of LRFD has never made much sense to me, at least not for wood design.

A confused student is a good student.

RE: Allowable Stress vs. Strength Design

medeek - this site has had many (too many) threads on the merits of LRFD vs. ASD.
Let's not start another one. And that topic doesn't have much to do with the original poster's question here.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Allowable Stress vs. Strength Design

Yea. Don't get me started. noevil

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


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