Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Factored Load Combinations with Cranes

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I'm not sure if you have looked at the load combinations lately.  

Eq. 16-2 has 100% crane and 50% roof.
Eq. 16-3 has 100% roof and a reduce live of 50%
Eq. 16-4 has 100% wind and a reduce live of 50%
Eq. 16-5 has 100% seismic and a reduce live of 50%

I think the crane load is accounted for in Eq. 16-2

Rich Lewis
Lewis Engineering
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Daryl Richardson [mailto:h.d.richardson(--nospam--at)shaw.ca] 
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 12:36 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Factored Load Combinations with Cranes

Fellow engineers.

        Do not reduce crane loads as part of load combinations!!!  Crane

operator very often overload the cranes; in some cases substantially.

        About two years ago I was called on to check out a Five (5) Ton 
crane because "it broke and they dropped the load".  Fortunately they
were 
lifting a dumpster of scrap metal; and, even more fortunately they
didn't 
drop it on anyone or on anything of value.

        They were pretty upset.  They had been disposing of the scrap
metal 
this way for years and nothing like this had ever happened before!  (But

then we have all heard the "We always done it that way before."
argument, 
haven't we?)

        The final failure was a broken cable.  I also recommended that
they 
strip it down and check the bearings, several sets of which needed 
replacement.

        The real cause of failure: the dumpster weighed ELEVEN (11)
TON!!!!

Regards to all,

H. Daryl Richardson
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Ransom" <ad026(--nospam--at)hwcn.org>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 10:00 AM
Subject: RE: Factored Load Combinations with Cranes


>> From: "Rich Lewis" <sea(--nospam--at)lewisengineering.com>
>
>> Are there factored load combinations recommended for design in a one
>> story building with a crane supported by the steel framing?   IBC
>
>> I ask this for foundation design load combinations.
>
>
>> From: "Scott, William N." <William.Scott(--nospam--at)veco.com>
>
>> A crane is an equipment load. The load should not be reduced.
>
> IBC 2003 is very explicit about the application of crane loads
including
> impact. Crane loads are defined as Live Loads and therefore subject to
> the permissible reductions in combinations.
>
>> The loading should be based on crane capacity with impact factors.
>
> I disagree that vertical "impact" loads are a foundation issue for a
> typical overhead crane building.
>
>
>> From: "Rich Lewis" <sea(--nospam--at)lewisengineering.com>
>
>> IBC 2003 states that for occupancy loads of 100 psf or more you can't
>> reduce it.  It says for all other live loads it can be reduced.
>> ASCE 7-02 basically states the same thing except it infers it is for
>> occupancy loads, which is not equipment.
>
> Floor loads are different creatures with different probabilities. IBC
> 2003 says, "The crane live load shall be the rated capacity of the
> crane." Only include impact for certain elements. I don't know where
> they include the crane mechanism (bridge and trolley). I think that
Gail
> needs to chase these guys, too.
>
>> PEMB designers use some different load combination factors for ASD
>> design when combining crane with live and wind forces.  Are there any
>> PEMB designers out there who can clarify what typical practice is for
>> load factor design?
>
> PEMB designers use the same load combination factors that you use, ASD
> or LRFD. Those who don't should not be lumped into the generalized
group
> of "designers." Unfortunately, there are PEMB manufacturers that don't
> know a "designer."
>
> Per IBC 2003:
> 1.2DL + 1.6L + 0.5(Lr or S)
> 1.2DL + 1.6(Lr or S) + f1(L)
> 1.2DL + 1.6W + f1(L) + 0.5Lr
> etc.
> where f1 = 0.5 and L includes crane loads per 1607.12, including
impact,
> and floor loads (reduced for area or not).
> Those are the mandatory combinations (code specific).
>
> ASCE7 is verbatim to IBC 2003 as far as I reviewed. I did note some
> inconsequential differences (e.g. f1 is overtly replaced with 0.5).
>
> NBCC does not permit reductions of crane loads in combination with
other
> (roof, floor) Live Loads and does require impact in the design load. I
> think this is a little conservative.
>
> The MBMA has put together one of the nicest crane-building design
> references available, in the Low-Rise Building Manual. The Manual is
not
> a code but a compilation of MBMA ->member<- manufacturers
> agreed-to-be-acceptable design practices ... kind of like AISC
manuals.
> So, no load combinations, just load development. Nobody has to follow
> this guide unless it is in the contract or in a building code.
>
> Also, see the new (free for download, pdf, http://www.cisc-icca.ca)
> publication by the CISC, "Guide to Crane Supporting Steel Structures"
> and the usual AISE TR-13, "Guide for the Design and Construction of
Mill
> Buildings."
>
> For those who have read this far, a question:
> What "static" load should be used for limiting crane building
> deflections, what should be the limiting deflections and why should it
> matter? Should we be concerned about lateral building deflection or
only
> rail separation as a deflection control (P-delta issues aside)? I
would
> be interested in Christopher Wright's opinions related to the dynamic
> effect aspects.
>
> -- 
> R. Paul Ransom, P. Eng.
> Civil/Structural/Project/International
> Burlington, Ontario, Canada
> <mailto:ado26(--nospam--at)hwcn.org> <http://www.hwcn.org/~ad026/civil.html>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********