×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
• Talk With Other Members
• Be Notified Of Responses
• Keyword Search
Favorite Forums
• Automated Signatures
• 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.

# Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

## Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

(OP)
What is the current code requirement for any reduction in foundation self-weight (D) when resisting wind uplift (W)?

2021 IBC contains the following verbiage:

"For load combinations that include the counteracting effects of dead and wind loads, only two-thirds of the minimum dead load likely to be in place during a design wind event shall be used."

In spite of this, there is no load combination shown that includes 0.67D.

In ASCE 7-16, combination 7 gives 0.6D + 0.6W. This is different from the two-thirds that IBC says.
Replies continue below

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

You are looking at alternative load combinations, not the standard ones.

Either way, I believe the 2/3rd is generally in line with the logic of a 1.5 SF for overturning and such.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

I use the basic combinations and use 0.6D for uplift combinations. As HDStructural said 2/3 is for alternative load combinations, and it can be beneficial to use those in some cases.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

My impression is the alternate load combinations are more work for minimal benefit. Particularly if they involve wind, which is typical.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

The 0.67DL would be a resisting force not an applied load.

www.PeirceEngineering.com

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

#### Quote (PEinc)

The 0.67DL would be a resisting force not an applied load.
Not sure I follow what you are implying here, care to explain a bit?

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

You apply the various driving forces (wind, live load, hydrostatic, seismic, etc.) to the structure with their appropriate, individual, load factors (LF > 1). When checking stability (overturning and sliding), one of the resisting forces is the dead load of the footing but, in LRFD design, you have to multiply (reduce) the dead load weight slightly by multiplying the weight by a resistance factor (RF < 1). Applying resistance factors essentially raises the overall "safety factor" above the average load factor.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

(OP)
I should have clarified; my question has to do with ASD loads.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

DTS419 - mentioning 0.6D makes it clear you're talking about ASD combinations. And the alternative combinations are strictly for ASD.

This is the first sentence from the code section you quoted:

#### Quote (2021 IBC 1605.2 Alternative allowable stress design load combinations (in part))

In lieu of the load combinations in ASCE 7, Section 2.4, structures and portions thereof shall be permitted to be designed for the most critical effects resulting from the following combinations.

This entire code section is to be used in lieu of and not with ASCE 7. You either use 1605.1, which directs you to ASCE 7 for the load combinations, or you use 1605.2, which has its own combinations and additional rules to follow. They don't mix.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

(OP)
phamENG - In the situations I am referring to, there are no other combinations to consider so it is as simple as using one or the other. Basically, wind uplift is provided by truss manufacturer and foundation is sized for resisting weight. The "portions thereof" clause in 1605.1 would cover this.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

What do you mean no other combinations to consider? In your original post, you're asking about ASCE combinations and IBC alternative combinations. That's two different sets of load combinations. Or do you mean you see now that you have to pick one of them?

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

(OP)
I'm saying that I'm not designing the whole structure so I'm not considering the full spectrum of load combinations.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

Regardless of if you are designing the whole structure you still need to run through the load combinations? Some of your load types may just be zero so that case doesn't govern; this doesn't mean you don't have to rationalize this out.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

(OP)
I think this is being overcomplicated. It's as simple as sizing a CIP deadman to resist a provided wind uplift force.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

#### Quote (DTS419)

It's as simple as sizing a CIP deadman to resist a provided wind uplift force.

Right. And are you using ASCE 7 load combinations to do it, or are you using IBC alternative load combinations?

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

(OP)
That's the question. Can it be 0.67D per the IBC alternative, or does it have to be 0.6D?

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

I would advise using the ASCE load combinations. The value you're getting from the truss manufacturer is not the wind uplift, but the net uplift. So they've already considered the dead load of the roof in there and they are reporting the result of the analysis considering a load combination. The only truss calculations I have ever seen use ASCE 7 load combinations. In fact, I've never once seen anyone try to use the alternative load combinations for anything - ever.

If you now use 0.67 dead for the foundation, you have mixed the load combinations, which is no good.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

Agreed with Pham here.

Also 0.6 vs 0.67 is splitting hairs imho.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

(OP)

#### Quote (TRAK.Structural)

Also 0.6 vs 0.67 is splitting hairs imho

I'll let you explain that to my contractors who are trying to run competitive businesses.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

DTS - Contractor pressure is something we all have to deal with on some level, so I do understand that it is a factor. However the most competitive companies that I know are the ones who do things right and aren't looking to trim everything down to bare bones.

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

I think it is important to highlight this point:
"..only two-thirds of the minimum dead load likely to be in place during a design wind event shall be used."

In the alternative combination you shouldn't be using 2/3 of your normal dead load it should only be the dead load you reasonably assume will be there during the design event. In the case of the cast-in-place dead man 2/3 of self weight is likely reasonable. In the case of a building 2/3 of the design superimposed dead load is not likely accurate.

"..wind uplift is provided by truss manufacturer.."
usually no you as the EOR are providing the uplift to the truss manufacturer, they typically aren't figuring out the loads for themselves (some do but I think it's in TPI-1 that all loads should be provided by the EOR)

### RE: Foundation Self Weight for Resisting Uplift

#### Quote (Celt83)

usually no you as the EOR are providing the uplift to the truss manufacturer, they typically aren't figuring out the loads for themselves (some do but I think it's in TPI-1 that all loads should be provided by the EOR)

While we are required by chapter 16 to provide it, I've found that most truss manufacturers do come up with it themselves. A significant portion of the trusses produced are not used on engineered structures, and so the standard software has a wind module that automatically determines the wind load on a roof truss. I think it's easier for them to just enter the wind speed, building height, and exposure class and get it automatically rather than trying to manually enter the wind loads we provide.

#### 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.

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:

• Talk To Other Members
• Notification Of Responses To Questions
• Favorite Forums One Click Access
• Keyword Search Of All Posts, And More...

Register now while it's still free!