Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

DEFINITION: "Full-Factored Live Load" in

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill,

I would read this as you can't use the reduced live load (reduced based on 
tributary area).

A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona

Bill Polhemus wrote:

. > Funny how your assumptions sometimes don't bear up when you actually
. > scrutinize them.

. > All along, I was assuming that live load "patterning" for analysis and
. > design of R/C buildings included use of such patterning when lateral 
. > loading (such as wind) was part of the analysis.

. > However, I'm unsure about what to make of the referenced paragraph.  For
. > those without a UBC handy, I'll quote:

. > "1908.9.2 It is permitted to [assume] that the arrangement of live load 
. > is limited to combinations of:

. > 1. Factored dead load on all spans with FULL-FACTORED live load on two
. > adjacent spans, and
. > 2. Factored dead load on all spans with FULL-FACTORED live load on 
. > alternate spans."

. > [Emphasis mine].

. > Now that I read it, it seems to me that "full-factored" could be 
. > interpreted as meaning "the greatest-factored live load," i.e. 1.4D + 
. > 1.7L, and that live load in all other combinations [e.g. 0.75 (1.4D + 
. > 1.7L + 1.7W)] need not be subjected to "patterning."

. > Am I wrong? If so, how do you interpret this, and how do you accomplish it
. > in your analysis?

. > Thanks.