×
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

Related Articles

Jobs

Omega Factor and Anchorage per ASCE 7-10 Ch. 13

Omega Factor and Anchorage per ASCE 7-10 Ch. 13

Omega Factor and Anchorage per ASCE 7-10 Ch. 13

(OP)
I believe this issue has previously been discussed to some extent, but those threads are now closed. I'm interested in getting other engineering opinions about an issue that has nagged me for awhile: omega factor and its relations to concrete anchor bolts per ASCE 7-10 Ch. 13.

The footnote at the bottom of Table 13.6-1 indicates omega must be applied for design of anchor bolts, clear enough on the surface. My question is WHEN does omega get applied? For instance, say you have a simple piece of equipment, considered a "rigid box" for this discussion. You calculate that the effect of horizontal and vertical seismic loads (disregarding omega) would be counteracted by the resisting moment of the dead load, therefore you have no net tension on your anchors. In fact, even if your box has no anchors and simply rests passively on the concrete slab, it still wouldn't overturn as proven by your calcs, and also wouldn't slide presuming the friction resistance is greater than the sliding load.

However, someone else will contend that omega needs to be applied to the horizontal load as part of the overturning check. This is more conservative, and perhaps was the intent of 7-10 code writers, but I believe it would miss all logic, including the logic of physics. Whether the box overturns or not is strictly a matter of geometry and loads, a stability issue, and any theoretical anchors do not impact the geometry and whether there is theoretical overturning. Imagine for a moment that the box doesn't have anchors into concrete but instead has thru-bolts through a thin slab or a steel beam flange. Per code, there would be no omega applied here. Why would that difference in anchor point type impact whether there is net overturning that needs resisting? My contention is that omega should be applied to the net tension load on the anchor (in the scenario that one exists) and the shear load on the anchor once you've performed the statics to get the real load on the anchors. Prior to this, the anchor hasn't yet come into play. What do other people think? I contend my method more closely captures the intent of "amplification" (applied to component/connection, not to the whole system).

One other issue I see:

If your component is located at ground level, most likely your Fp-min equation will govern. The exception would be if you apply omega to the standard Fp, which otherwise was lower than Fp-min, it might now climb higher than Fp-min. Do you go with that load? Or do you take your Fp-min load and apply omega to that (an even more conservative result)? Table 13.6-1 implies that Omega is used in conjunction with ap and Rp factors, and those factors aren't even in play for Fp-min equation.

RE: Omega Factor and Anchorage per ASCE 7-10 Ch. 13

In the tank world, the omega-factor is not generally used explicity, but the idea is incorporated into the design codes.
The need for anchor bolts, the sizing of anchor bolts, and the sizing of the foundation to which the anchor bolts attach are all based on the nominal seismic load. General seismic loads in the shell and the foundation are based on nominal seismic loads.
The design of the anchor chair, design of the shell for the anchor forces, and the embedment design for the anchor in the concrete are all based on an increased force which is essentially incorporating the omega factor. It is assumed that in a design seismic event, the anchors WILL yield unless considerably oversized.
The R factor is lower for a tank without anchors, so the nominal seismic load is different for the two cases.

RE: Omega Factor and Anchorage per ASCE 7-10 Ch. 13

Quote:

You calculate that the effect of horizontal and vertical seismic loads (disregarding omega) would be counteracted by the resisting moment of the dead load, therefore you have no net tension on your anchors.

Keep in mind that your calculated seismic loads includes a reduction factor, R, which is not necessarily the true seismic load. You've been allowed to reduce the true seismic load by the factor of "R" to account for the ability of your system to absorb energy, remain ductile, etc. The true seismic demand (your calculated E x R) is much higher - and the Omega factor helps ensure that your brittle, rigid anchors won't fail first.

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

RE: Omega Factor and Anchorage per ASCE 7-10 Ch. 13

Section 13.4 explicitly requires components to be positively attached, bolted, welded, etc. to the supporting structure. So that makes stability checks a moot point, because you know you have to anchor it regardless. If the supporting structure is concrete, that footnote in Table 13.6-1 directs you to the load combos to use IF you are designing the anchors with omega. You just apply those combos to determine anchor demand. If you end up with zero net tension, just design the anchors for the shear demand. You aren't allowed to consider friction resistance for components, so there will always be shear demand.

Bear in mind that designing the anchor with omega is not mandatory. ACI 318 has a few different options for designing anchors for seismic loads besides the simple omega factor option that is used most commonly. If you choose the omega option, then you obey the footnote and use those load combos in Section 12.4.3. If you choose one of the other non-omega options, the footnote doesn't apply and you can ignore it. It's a little confusing from a code standpoint because the design method chosen in the reference standard (ACI 318) determines whether a footnote in the main code (ASCE 7) applies or not...

They added a clarification in ASCE 7-16 Section 13.3 regarding the non-application of omega to the calculation of Fp:

Quote (ASCE 7-16)

The overstrength factor, Ω0,in Table 13.5-1 and Table 13.6-1,is applicable only to anchorage of components to concrete and masonry where required by Section 13.4.2 or the standards referenced therein and shall be applied in accordance with Section 12.4.3. The redundancy factor, ρ, is permitted to be taken as equal to 1, and the overstrength factors in Table 12.2-1 need not apply.

So calculate Fp by itself and only apply omega in the load combinations.

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

White Paper: Industrial Control Basics: Contactors
A contactor is an electrical device used for switching an electrical circuit on or off. Considered to be a special type of relay, contactors are used in applications with higher current carrying capacity, while relays are used for lower current applications. Download Now
Research Report: State of IoT Adoption in Product Development 2019
This research report, based on a survey of 234 product development professionals, examines the current state of Internet of Things (IoT) adoption by product design teams, its perceived importance, and what features and capabilities teams consider important when making decision about adding IoT functionality to their products. Download Now
Research Report: Augmented Reality for Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO)
The term Industry 4.0 denotes a cluster of technologies that’s poised to fundamentally reshape manufacturing and bring about a new industrial revolution. These include 3D printing (AM), the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), artificial intelligence (AI) and mixed reality technologies, more commonly known as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR). Download Now

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