Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Load combination 7. .6D+W+H

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
• To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
• Subject: Re: Load combination 7. .6D+W+H
• From: "William Haynes" <gtg740p(--nospam--at)gmail.com>
• Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 12:01:43 -0500

```The combination is for stability too. You use the combination 0.6D+W+H
and that is it. You don't have to subsequently use a 1.5 safety factor
or any additional dead load factors for stability after you have
applied the 0.6D+W+H load combination (it's not cumulative).

Footing weights and retaining wall dead loads must also be multiplied
by 0.6 when using this combination, it's not just for concrete
columns. This combination applies to uplift and overturning. Dividing
1/0.6=1.67 so the traditional 1.5 safety factor is more than accounted
for already.

Will

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Joseph Eribarne <jeribarnese(--nospam--at)bak.rr.com> wrote:
> Sirs:
>
>
>
> We have some confusion on the  application of ASCE7 ASD load combination 7,
> .6D+W+H.
>
>
>
> ASCE 7 Section 2.1 indicates that the load combinations shall be used for "a
> particular construction material throughout the structure."  I understand
> that the .6D allows for the sometimes overestimating of the dead load and
> that concrete columns, for example, should be proportioned for this load
> case as the reduced dead load sometimes leads to the governing condition.
> Are these load combinations for the design of the materials only or are they
> also to be used for the overall stability of the structure itself.
>
>
>
> Two quick examples:
>
> 1)      We do many light framed steel structures and also foundation design
> for prefabricated metal buildings.  If, for example, the resulting .6D+W
> load combination results in a 6000# uplift, how much concrete footing weight
> (along with slab and soil overburden) must be placed.  Is it 6000# or must
> it be 10000#.  The latter will result in inordinately large footing on a
> very small building using a factor of .6D on a material weight that is known
> quite accurately with very little chance of over estimating its weight.
> Anchor bolts and any attachments of course, should be designed for the full
> .6D+W load.
>
> 2)      Retaining walls:  Must the retaining wall stability also be designed
> for this case.  Should there be a case where the unit weight of the wall,
> footing and soil is reduced 40% by using a .60 factor to resist
> overturning.  This would even be more magnified where the retaining wall
> extends above grade and receives wind load (or is all of this ignored and
> the traditional FS of 1.5 is used for sliding and overturning?  Or is it
> cumulative?)  Or even just a free standing 8' high block wall fence
> receiving wind load.  Should overturning be checked by reducing the unit
> weights of the wall?  When using a program such as Retain Pro, one should
> redefine the unit weight of the materials to .6 of their actual values?
>
> Again, I am asking about the overall stability of the structure, not the
> design of a particular element.
>
> Thanks for reading this and for your thoughts in advance.
>
>
>
> Joe Eribarne

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

```