Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: FTG UPLIFT[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: FTG UPLIFT
- From: "erik" <erik_g(--nospam--at)cox.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:52:48 -0800
- Authentication-results: cox.net; none
Stuart, I would be interested in hearing the method that you are talking about.
From: Stuart, Matthew
I have a method of calculating a way to engage a large area of the slab on grade above as a part of the uplift resistance.
D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F.ASCE, SECB
My office just served as the engineer for PEMB foundations on a large project. We did use the 0.6 factor on the self-weight of the footings, but there was a lot of discussion in our office about it. We could not find an authoritative source that would allow using 100% of the footing weight, although it seems to make sense for the reasons you describe. I'm interested to hear what others have done.
I wanted to
see how many are using 0.6xFTG Self Weight of the footing when checking uplift
due to wind or using the entire footing weight, 1.0xFTG Self Weight to help
resist uplift. There appears to be several engineers that use 0.6x(everything
else dead load except the footing) + 1.0x(FTG Self Weight) to check versus
1.0xGross wind uplift. The concrete has no allowance to be lighter than what
you assume, and the footings have to be consistently dug to at least the
dimensions you specify on your drawings. Is there anyone involved in forensics
of metal buildings that have seen the footings uplift out of the ground when
the code prescribed 0.6 wasn't factored on the footing self weight?
- Prev by Subject: Re: FTG UPLIFT
- Next by Subject: Re: FTG UPLIFT
- Previous by thread: Re: FTG UPLIFT
- Next by thread: Re: FTG UPLIFT