But how is that "full-factored"? The hyphen is, I think, significant.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Turk [mailto:73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 1:21 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: DEFINITION: "Full-Factored Live Load" in
> 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.