Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: IBC 2000 load combinations

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dwain,

In short...yes. <grin>

I believe that the intent is to basically take away the effect of the 1/3
stress increase that has traditionally been allowed.  It is definitely not
permitted to be used in the main load cases.  It is still kind of there in
the alternate load cases...after all you can increase the allowable
stresses by 33% but you only increase ONE PART of the load combination by
30%.  Thus, if you have a rather low wind load to gravity load ratio, then
much of the allow stress increase will still be there.  If you have a
rather high wind load to gravity load ratio, then the effect of the
allowable stress increase could be greatly diminished.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Dwain Hendershot wrote:

> I agree with this interpretation, but it still seems we're losing the 1/3
> increase in the alternate load combinations.  Essentially the 1/3 increase
> is being "washed out" when applying the 1.3 factor to W if all you are
> looking at is a wind force only, say on tension-only x-bracing.  Whereas in
> UBC you applied a similar wind load with a 1.0 in front of W and still got
> the stress increase.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Dwain Hendershot
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 12:50 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: IBC 2000 load combinations
>
>
> Dwain:
>
> I believe you have that a little backwards.  I might be wrong, but I
> believe that the alternate load combinations ALLOW the 1/3 increase for
> when you then are essentially increasing the wind load by the 1.3 factor.
> In otherwords, it seems that you can use the increased allowable stresses
> (increased by 33% on one side of the equation) when compared with the load
> combinations that increase the wind load (increased by about 30% on the
> other side of equation...at least the wind load is).  If you use the
> "regular" (i.e. NOT the alternate) load combinations, then the IBC appears
> to be doing away with the 1/3 increase with _NO_ 1.3 factor in front of
> the wind.
>
> Or if this helps...it appears...
>
> "regular" load cases:
>
> D + (W or 0.7E) + L + (Lsubr or S or R) <= allowable stress (eq 16-10)
>
> equivalent "alternate" load case:
>
> D + L + 1.3W + S/2 <= 4/3 * allowable stress (eq 16-15) [at least for
> those materials that permit the 1/3 stress increase]
>
> Again, I could be wrong in my interpretation...so it would give me warm
> fuzzies if someone verfied that what I believe makes sense.
>
> HTH,
>
> Scott
> Ypsilanti, MI
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Dwain Hendershot wrote:
>
> > So it seems that IBC is essentially doing away with the 1/3 increase by
> > adding the 1.3 in front of the W, correct?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:34 AM
> > To: Seaint@Seaint. Org
> > Subject: Re: IBC 2000 load combinations
> >
> >
> > Dwain:
> >
> > The 2000 IBC references the ASCE 7-98.  The referenced standards used in
> > the 2000 IBC are listed in chapter 35.
> >
> > The reason for the 1.3 appear to be due to the fact that the alternate
> > allowable stress load combinations in section 1605.3.2 allow the use of
> > the good ol' 1/3 allowable stress increase that has traditionally been
> > used in most materials.  The "main" ASD load cases (section 1605.3.1) does
> > not seem to allow the use of the stress increase.
> >
> > Just my take on it from a brief look.
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Scott
> > Ypsilanti, MI
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Dwain Hendershot wrote:
> >
> > > Section 1605.3.2 Alternate basic load combinations indicates that ASCE7
> > wind
> > > loads must be increased by a factor of 1.3 but you get applicable
> > increases
> > > in allowable stresses.  Section 1605.3.1 does not increase the same wind
> > > load but does allow an increase to wood shear walls for duration per
> > chapter
> > > 23.  It seems to me that using the alternate load combinations penalizes
> > you
> > > 30% when checking allowables for shear walls.  The only explanation I
> can
> > > come up with is that maybe the IBC is referencing ASCE7-95.  The wind
> load
> > > factors appear to have been increased in ASCE7-98 according to its
> > > commentary section C2.3.2.  Is this a correct interpretation?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Dwain Hendershot
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********