×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

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.

Students Click Here

Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?
5

Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

(OP)
The snow load duration factor is 1.15 times the standard 10-year sustained maximum load rating as long as the accumulated time under this load is not more than 2 months. Does this mean that
1. a. the snow load being at the duration factor of 1.15 for 2 months continuously (experimental
case) is at the same level of safety as

b. permanently being at the standard load rating (control case)

when assuming that the experimental case is well under the under standard load rating for the rest of the year, or

2. does the experimental case impart additional risk compared to the control case from the long-term perspective?

Basically, this is asking whether the standard practice allows the control case to use up the safety margin (factor of safety minus one) of the standard load rating only because its short term means that the probability of other loads happening simultaneously will be negligibly small, or whether the safety margin of the standard load still applies on top of the maximum load at full duration allowed by the duration factor.

For example, if the snow season is especially long one year but not especially intense at any given moment, meaning that the roof at any given time is at the forseeable maximum snow load accounted by the duration factor but that it is at that load for a whopping 4 months rather than the expected maximum of 2 months, does that mean the roof will cave in, probably causing the pancake effect to collapse the entire building too?

As for another example under main question, will having the load at any given time within the timeframe moderately exceeding the snow load duration factor, but not having the duration exceed that, make the roof or even building collapse?

Under the hypothetical case that load duration factors in standard practice already use up all of the safety margins for the standard load ratings, this means that exceeding the load duration factor also exceeds the safety margin. Since this exceeds the safety margin, does this mean that exceeding the load duration factor will guarantee a collapse?

In civil engineering in general, does being at the rated limit mean that there is a negligible chance of failure if everything is done perfectly (too small to be measured, such as 1ppb) and does being at the upper limit of the safety margin practically guarantee a failure if everything else is done perfectly (too large to measure a successful case, such as 99.9999999% failure rate)?

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

1. a. the snow load being at the duration factor of 1.15 for 2 months continuously (experimental
case) is at the same level of safety as
b. permanently being at the standard load rating (control case)


I suspect the 15% is to increase the load from a two-month time period to a longer time period. The material may have other requirements for duration of loading (like wood for example) which reflect the material properties.

when assuming that the experimental case is well under the under standard load rating for the rest of the year, or

If overloaded in winter, it may not wait until spring to collapse. I don't understand your question.

2. does the experimental case impart additional risk compared to the control case from the long-term perspective?

Again, I don't understand the question. Your discussion appears to be a bit convoluted to answer. Can you simplify the questions a tad... In my case, it might be old age creeping up, but I had difficulty understanding your comments.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

This is actually a really good question. ASCE 7 committees have done a bunch of statistical research and historical research to determine the loadings.

For each different loading case they basically decided on a few things....
-How confident are we that the magnitude of the loading we use is correct?
-How much variability in the magnitude of the loading do we expect? How confident are we about this?
-What recurrence interval for each load case at these magnitudes do we expect? (how often do we reach that level?)
-What is the probabilities for each of these loads to act simultaneously at their peak?

The code attempts to answer these questions by Load Combination Factors. The commentary C2.1 of ASCE716 details this out pretty well.

But that is all on the loading side, on the capacity side we employ another similar set of statistical questions to quantify the strength of elements including variability in material and workmanship.
Factors for both the loading and the strength are calibrated (for LRFD design as an example) to meet a specific probability of failure in the lifetime of the structure.

All of this background is necessary to understand the answer to your question in my view.

Now on to Cd factor for ASD only. NDS Commentary section C2.3.2 says gives plenty of information on each value of Cd presented.

TL:DR - The Cd factor is a scalar to be used with ASCE 7 loading. It is not a factor that accounts for the duration that a structure can safely hold the load, instead it accounts for the duration and recurrence of the loading. It is a statistical adjustment that NDS uses to make their published vales compatible with ASCE 7.

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

Structure design and response to load is not as simple as "will it collapse or will it not".

Snow load and the probability of exceedance is a whole other discussion. It's not an exact science, let's not pretend it is.

In the States, there are guidelines for using reduced loads for short-duration installations. The amount of reduction depends on the duration. If the actual built structure is in place for longer than the duration of the initial design, there is increasing risk the longer the structure is in place. Regardless, nothing properly designed is guaranteed to collapse. Most collapses involve significant design and/or construction errors, not errors in duration factors.

I have no idea if that answered your question.

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

Thanks, drift...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

I understood the duration factors to account for the resilience of the wood to short-term vs. sustained loads; that creep or softening of the fibers in wood will decrease its ultimate strength when the load is sustained for a long period of time.

Even in a long snow season, the maximum snow load is unlikely to be sustained more than 2 months.

As JLNJ stated, none of this is exact, or even close to being exact. The actual tensile strength of a clear piece of Douglas Fir is around 10,000 psi, but the design stress is around 2000 psi, to account for irregularities in the structure.

I wouldn't get too hung up on whether the snow load lasts 3 or 4 months, instead of 2, but if the engineer decides that the snow load may regularly last more than 2 months, it's within their discretion to use a smaller duration factor.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

(OP)
I never knew and was SUPER surprised that structural engineering was not an exact science (unlike soft science, which aren't even sciences in my view and are just studies, because exactness in the crucial parameters is required for falsifiability, and falsifiability is required in order to be a real science), as otherwise given by all the math involved and especially probability distribution curves used. Thanks for letting me know. So are you implying that structural engineering is not a hard (exact) science, which means that it isn't even truly a science at all, which goes against all my prior knowledge?

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

(OP)
BridgeSmith, I'm mainly wondering whether the snow load lasting 4 months (or even for a whole 12 months and then no snow for several years afterwards) will cause a roof with a standard factor of safety designed for the standard maximum snow load duration of 2 months to collapse. This is just a hypothetical scenario to test the logical consequences of the standard designs (but with perfect workmanship, the collection of parts overall not even having a single defect (not exceeding the manufacturer's stated defect rate limit even in the slightest for any set of parts), and perfect adherence to the codes) and may possibly have not even occured once in the world.

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

2
@Kwan.....structural engineering can be exact in its implementation, but inexact in its reality. The reason for this is the number of variables involved and the assumptions that must be made in the name of engineering judgment. A example: You design a beam based on its standard minimum yield strength. You calculate its capacity EXACTLY. Well, that's not actually its capacity. Chances are it has quite a bit more capacity than your "exact" calculations show because of unaccounted variability in the actual strength of the material. The same applies to steel, concrete, aluminum, wood or any other material.

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

Quote (Kwan)

I'm mainly wondering whether the snow load lasting 4 months (or even for a whole 12 months and then no snow for several years afterwards) will cause a roof with a standard factor of safety designed for the standard maximum snow load duration of 2 months to collapse.

There is such a thing as unintended consequences. The building could collapse, but not for the reason you are expecting (wood member "breaks").

When wood exceeds its' elastic limit (2000 psi in BridgeSmith's example) but is less than its' failure point (modulus of rupture, 10,000 psi in the example), over time, the wood deflects, distorts, bends, etc... a lot.
This unanticipated movement could overload these connections (nails, bolts, screws, split-rings, etc), causing the connections to fail... bringing down the structure.

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

"surprised that structural engineering was not an exact science" ... and therein lies the difference between engineering and science. Science wants to deal with absolute statements; "material science" is thus correct for defining the strength of materials. Engineering on the other hand has to deal with ill-defined issues ...
1) I know how strong steel is, but how strong is this piece of steel ? what is the manufacturing process like ? Sure I could test each piece (like matches) but it's easier to apply a factor to the strength of steel to be (somewhat) confident that no (well, very, very few) pieces will be under strength.
2) how much snow (and at what density) will fall on this building ? After a bunch of research a number is agreed, actual snow load can possibly (but not often) exceed this.
3) similarly with other loads ... approximations that have stood the test of time. It may be interesting to see if climate change brings changes to weather related loads.

I keep telling the young guys at work "there is no truth", but sometimes we should keep looking for a closer approximation to it !? In your case, I think if the building fell down then the investigation will show that either ...
1) the code had been correctly applied, and reality exceeded the code (so the building was doomed), or
2) the code had not been correctly applied, but even still reality exceeded the code, or
3) the code had not been correctly applied, and the building should've withstood the loads applied.

Be happy we don't live in Hammurabi's time !

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

So, would the roof certainly collapse in the snow stays on it for 4 months? No.

Is there a possibility of it collapsing under that scenario? A microscopically thin possibility, but yes.

Is there a possibility of collapse with the the snow load on it for one day, or no snow load at all? Again, a microscopically thin possibility, but yes.

As rb1957, stated, nearly all structural members are stronger than we assume them to be for design, and nearly always, the loads will never exceed what is anticipated in the design. In order for there to be a collapse of a properly engineered structure, would require a combination of several unlikely events. Could several wooden roof trusses all have a bottom chord with an undetected structural defect that renders their tension capacity smaller than the capacity used for design? Of course it's possible. Is it possible that all of them are put into a roof system side by side? Sure. It would be like the odds of throwing snake eyes on a pair of dice 20 times in a row, but it's possible. Then, if you had large and usually dense snowfall on that very rare roof system, it could collapse.

The collapse of a structure can be the result of unnoticed or ignored deterioration of some critical part of the structural system. Sometimes collapses are due to unexpected external loading (look up the Sunshine Skyway bridge collapse), and occasionally by a failure to anticipate how the loading would affect the structure.

Most often, when a collapse happens, it's the result of a combination of factors. Again, I'll use bridge example: The I35W bridge in Minneapolis. When it was designed back in the 1960's there was an error made in the design, which resulted in some of the gusset plates being undersized. The error went undetected until it collapsed into the river 40 years later. At teh time of its collapse, the thickness of the concrete deck weighed 33% more than it was designed for, and the barrier rails weighed twice as much as the original barriers. There were vehicles bumper to bumper in 4 of the 8 lanes all the way across the bridge, and a pile of gravel weighing 120,000 lbs and 2 full 11 CY concrete trucks were all right together on the bridge. By the numbers, there was no factor of safety, the bridge should have collapsed the moment the loading exceeded the original design load by even a few pounds. The estimates I saw indicated at the time of the collapse, the loading exceeded the original design loading by almost 30%.

If you want to really understand the mechanisms and causes of structural failures, dig into the Engineering Failures & Disasters forum.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

From a purely statistical perspective, consider the BridgeSmith's 1st three comments. There is some probability distribution that describes the collapse probability vs. load. Ostensibly, you do not want to design such that the rated loads are infinitely safe, because every structure would be outrageously expensive and grossly over designed; nor do you want the rated loads to produce anything other that "microscopically thin possibility" because too many such failures would cause a lot of lawsuits for "poor" design. And given you don't know what each individual structural element is capable of, and nor do you have assurance that every connection meets its torque, or whatever spec, the design "rules" are constructed such that any structure, correctly designed, will likely survive its rated loads and possibly exceed them sufficiently often that you won't lose a lawsuit if such a structure does fail.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

(OP)
For the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge, did it exceed the rated load capacity (after the factor of safety is applied) by 30% or the ultimate load capacity (before the factor of safety is applied) by 30% (meaning that it exceeded the rated amount by well over 50%)? Also, what was the overall system factor of safety applied?

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

Bridges require constant maintenance because of their environment; it's not a fair comparison. And we know most bridges and overpasses are undermaintained, so it's likely that most bridges are not operating to their original design strengths.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

Quote:

For the I-35W Mississippi River Bridge, did it exceed the rated load capacity (after the factor of safety is applied) by 30% or the ultimate load capacity (before the factor of safety is applied) by 30% (meaning that it exceeded the rated amount by well over 50%)? Also, what was the overall system factor of safety applied?

The bridge was intended to have a factor of safety of approximately 2, but due to a change in the design, the implications of which were not fully examined, the load carrying capacity of some of the gusset plates were half what they should have been, therefore the factor of safety was negated.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

(OP)
Was the factor of safety just mostly negated, totally negated, or did or did it over-negate and become net negative instead of just neutral right after the final change in design before initial completion? If so, how many percent of the factor of safety was remaining (it will be negative if the actual load is greater than the limit at the factor of safety), or what was the ultimate net factor of safety (will be less than one if actual load greater than load at limit of factor of safety)?

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

I don't know how I can be any clearer, but I'll try once more. The original intent was that the capacity would be twice the expected loading at the time it was designed. The design error made it so that, by the numbers, the capacity was approximately equal to the original design loading (half of 2 equals 1). There was apparently, in reality, more capacity (about 30% more) than was expected, since it did not actually fail until the load was about 30% more than the original design loading.

Of course, no one knew this, since only the truss members, and not the connections, were checked when the various rehabilitations were done that added to the load on the trusses.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

(OP)
I see. So,
1. the actual load capacity (actual load during catastrophic failure),
was 30% greater than
2. the original plan's rated (also known as "expected" in this case) load capacity
2.1. which was roughly equal to the changed plan's overlooked (actual rather than stated) design ultimate load capacity
2.1.1. which was twice the changed plan's overlooked (actual) rated load capacity (engineers forgot to recalculate or miscalculated the rated load after the design change, so they didn't spot that error), assuming that the same factor of safety is used.

So, if I use the original rated load as the index, then the following will have these factors:
1. original rated load == 1 (defining point)
2. original design ultimate load == (1)*2 = 1*2 = 2
3. original design breaking point == (2) = 2
4. changed stated (also known as "intended" in this case) design ultimate load == (2) = 2
5. changed stated design breaking point == (4) = 2
6. changed actual design ultimate load == ~(1) = ~1
7. changed actual design breaking point == (6) = ~1
8. changed stated rated load == (4)/2 = 2/2 = 1
9. changed actual rated load == (6)/2 = ~1/2 = ~0.5
10. changed actual breaking point == (6)* ~1.3 = ~1* ~1.3 = ~1.3
11. changed actual ultimate load == (10) = ~1.3

So, if the changed plan's actual design ultimate load is precisely 97% of the original plan's rated load and the bridge actually failed at precisely 31% over the changed plan's actual design ultimate load for example, then the following factors will be:
1. original rated load == 1
2. original design ultimate load == (1)*2 = 1*2 = 2
3. original design breaking point == (2) = 2
4. changed stated (also known as "intended" in this case) design ultimate load == (2) = 2
5. changed stated design breaking point == (4) = 2
6. changed actual design ultimate load == (1)*0.97 = 1*0.97 = 0.97
7. changed actual design breaking point == (6) = 0.97
8. changed stated rated load == (4)/2 = 2/2 = 1
9. changed actual rated load == (6)/2 = 0.97/2 = 0.485 = 0.48 (after rounding to 2 sig. figs.)
10. changed actual breaking point == (6)*(1+0.31) = 0.97*1.31 = 1.2707 = 27% over the original rated load (after rounding to 2 sig. figs.)
11. changed actual ultimate load == (10) = 27% over the original rated load (after rounding)

So, am I right on everything? If not, then what did I get wrong?

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

Kwan - what is the point of this discussion? Structural engineering relies on all sorts of assumptions and factors, some of which are arbitrary. Trying to make it a precise science is ridiculous.

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

(OP)
The point of this discussion is to see how much over rated limit and how much over the design limit a system or an individual structural part typically fails.

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

(OP)
The main thing I want to know is if heavy-duty tri-level bunk beds will overload the floor. There is currently a severe housing shortage in a not-insignificant part of the country and worldwide.

Let's say in a hypothetical (and slightly somewhat realistic) scenario that the housing shortage is so severe that people have to sleep in any indoor dry room (including living rooms, dining rooms that are not part of the kitchen, and foyers) they can find. Since all the dry rooms have already been occupied by multiple other sleepers each, they now have to resort to having only bunk beds in all bedrooms. Of course, having that many of people in any property unit is currently illegal due to timely evacuation under current fire laws, but let's say that it's been waived for this scenario. Let's also say that none of the buildings have been reinforced for this, but meet all other codes and are maintained in great condition.

The minimum load (unknown if that means rated or design limit) for "sleeping rooms" (according to the IBC) is 30 psf. Let's say that the weight of the heavy-duty steel king-size triple bunk bed is 400 lbs (very high estimate), all 3 king-size mattresses are each 180 lbs (highest amount for commercially produced ones), and that all 3 mattress topping sets are comprehensive and are each 30 pounds (extremely high estimate). This means that the bed setup has an overall empty operating weight of 1030 pounds, which is the same as the curb weight of a 4-seater golf cart. A king size bed has dimensions of 76 inches by 80 inches.

Let's also give an aisle on one side of the bed so that people can get on without passing through other beds. Let's make the aisle have the width as that in a school bus, which is 12 inches. However, the aisle is shared between facing beds, so that the aisle width per unit cell is only half that. Assume that each bed corner support post is 2 inches by 2 inches (fairly small estimate). That gives a bedset unit cell of 86 inches by 84 inches, which is an area of 7,224 in^2 = 50.16667 sqft.

Let's say that everyone who sleeps in the bed is the heaviest person who is healthy. The tallest height for a healthy person is 6'6", the heaviest sex for any given height is male, and the heaviest weight for 6'6" is 230 pounds. That means everyone sleeping in the bed is an extremely muscular (but not insanely, because being too muscular is unhealthy) 6'6" tall male. 2 of these men are able to fit with plenty of space remaining in a queen size bed, while 3 of them cannot fit in it without one turning his body or sleeping on top. So, 3 of these men sleeping on every king-size mattress was chosen because they give the greatest density within a standard size while being able to totally fit inside. The weight of clothing and shoes are insignificant, so they will be ignored here. The total weight of all men on the bed is 2070 lbs. This gives a total system bed weight of 3100 pounds, which is the heavy-duty bed can definitely support. This means each unit cell has a night average load concentration of 61.794 psf. Let's also say that they do not have to work and genuinely enjoy sleeping with each other during free time (and they all quickly become best friends forever within a week from that), so they spend an average of 20 hours laying in bed, 12 cumulative of them being sleep, for every calendar day including weekends and holidays.

If all dry rooms (including bedrooms) were loaded to a 20-hour average of 61.794 psf and all wet rooms loaded to a 24-hour average of 40 psf, both in every calendar day, in a well-maintained, light wooden-framed multi-storey building that was built to the minimum standard (30 psf for bedrooms and 40 psf for other dry rooms) in a location that is seismically stable, has little wind, and has little snow, will it have a not-insignificant chance (e.g., greater than one in a million chance of collapsing within any given year) by itself of causing the bedroom floors to pancake on top of each other? Will it even have a not-insignificant chance of causing the entire building to collapse? Given that it's well maintained and located in a geographically easy place, external factors such as natural disasters, water damage, erosion, and termite damage will not be a thing here. The only factor remaining will be structural. Also, this is way different from college students crowding together and dancing in a room because there are severe impact loads and significant resonance there but no impact loads here.

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

Quote:

The point of this discussion is to see how much over rated limit and how much over the design limit a system or an individual structural part typically fails.

It varies so widely, there is no typical limit where that can be predicted.

Under the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) model, materials are assigned resistance factors based on the variability in the material strengths, and the loads are assigned load factors based on the variability in the magnitudes expected. In the case of bridge design, the combination of those are calibrated with the aim of reaching a consistent reliability index value, currently 2.5. That is not to say every new bridge would fail at a load 2.5 times it's design load, or any value particularly close to that. It's really all a best guess, because despite our efforts at quality control of the materials, we don't know what the actual strengths of the components are. Also, despite improvements in structural modeling We don't know with any great degree of accuracy how the applied loads will affect the stresses in the structural members.

Quote:

The main thing I want to know is if heavy-duty tri-level bunk beds will overload the floor.

Then why did you begin by asking about snow loads, and then broaden the scope to include all structural engineering?

I'm done. I've wasted enough time on this.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

Regarding the comment by Kwan Kok Ko that a 30 PSF live load is allowed for 2nd floor sleeping rooms -
I have never worked for a truss company that was willing to do that. I'm not saying that it's absolutely never done. But I don't think it's common.

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

1st problem ... 9 230lb persons should not (in any reasonable world I know of) be sleeping in a triple bunk bed.

You want to put 1 ton on four point forces ... there's your second problem !

yeah, I'm with Ron ... I'm out, see you in the pub.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

(OP)
I never knew the difference is strengths between true and nominal varied so widely. On another topic, that's because the extended snow load is a much more realistic scenario than 9 large men in a triple bunk bed.

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

(OP)
As for a 1 ton force on 4 point sorces, I forgot to say that the bed posts have a significantly wider base, meaning that the load concentration directly under there would be only a small fraction of what it would have been otherwise.

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

(OP)
In other words, I'm trying to know whether or not a light wooden-framed building built to the minimum safety factor allowed by the laxest manual from the International Code Council (probably the International Residential Code), in good condition, without structural defects, and having dynamic loads below 20% of that of static loads, being sustained statically overloaded to 2.06 times the rated load for all bedrooms and being sustained statically overloaded to around 1.86 times the rated load for the average among all floor space will have a greater than negligible chance of collapsing, either over the the short run of a week or over the building's design life of 30+ years.

RE: Would exceeding the snow load duration factor practically guarantee a collapse?

(OP)
RontheRedneck,

Then how about 6 230-lb 6ft-6in tall highly fit men in a full size (54" * 75" = 4050 sqin = 28.125 sqft) triple bunk bed, where it is actually a decently comfortable size for those highly fine men to sleep in? Add 2 inches on all sides for the support posts and 6 inches on one side for half of a standard school-bus aisle (there will be a full-width aisle because of another unit cell with a reflected orientation on the other side), and you've got a unit cell dimension of 64" * 79", which is 5056 sqin, or 35.111 sqft. Also, the support posts are highly flared into the space under the bottom bunk, so that it ensures the load will be spread to a drastically larger area to ensure that it won't punch through the floor board while not increasing the footprint of the bed in the slightest.

Since the bed's structure will be super heavy duty, it will be very heavy for its size, weighing in at 300 pounds, in order to ensure that it can support all loads. All mattresses will use the heaviest full size one commercially available on the market, which is 60 pounds. Each bed-topping set is the heaviest commercially available full size full-featured set, clocking in at 30 pounds. That gives a total operating empty weight of 570 pounds and a total weight of 1950 pounds when including the handsome men. The weight of their clothing can be ignored because they will only be lightly dressed at most from being super warm under all the blankets. This means the concentrated load within the footprint of the bed is 69.333 psf, with the average load for the unit cell (which is the room average floor load) being 55.5 psf. The last figure is 85% over the bedroom floor's rated load of 30 psf, with the floor being built to the standard factor of safety. There is an inconsequential amount of dynamic load since there is not enough room for the humans to jump.

1. Will that cause the floor to fail if it is built to the IRC's minimum factor of safety?
2. How about if it is built to the IBC's minimum factor of safety?
3. How about if it is built to the minimum industry standard (industry standard's minimum rated load and industry's minimum factor of safety) in the USA and Canada?

Some people would actually want (given a hypothetical super severe housing shortage) to sleep in this bed with all the people in the other beds sharing the same room if they're all very close friends (or gay partners) and get to stay there long-term for almost free (because they own the condo unit located on the second story or higher and initial purchase price and recurring taxes divided evenly among all 36+ fully grown men), so this case is orders of magnitude more realistic than the last one.

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! Already a Member? Login


Resources

Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. 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