几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量  


返回   几何尺寸与公差论坛------致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T (GDT:ASME)|New GPS(ISO)研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量 » 三维空间:产品设计或CAX软件使用 » CAD设计 » 产品功能分析
用户名
密码
注册 帮助 会员 日历 银行 搜索 今日新帖 标记论坛为已读


回复
 
主题工具 搜索本主题 显示模式
旧 2009-09-06, 10:22 PM   #1
huangyhg
超级版主
 
huangyhg的头像
 
注册日期: 04-03
帖子: 18592
精华: 36
现金: 249466 标准币
资产: 1080358888 标准币
huangyhg 向着好的方向发展
默认 0.7e

0.6d + 0.7e
lets say that an analysis of a frame gives you an uplift force at the base of a column for the load combination of 0.6d + 0.7e. now to size the footing are you required to multiply the weight of the footing and any soil above it by 0.6 to calculate the uplift resistance?
find a job or post a job opening
yes. i don't agree with it, but it is part of the load combination. i can see that for other things that you estimate dead weights for, but you can figure out the weight of a concrete footing pretty accurately. i think a 0.9 factor would be more appropriate.
i agree structuraleit, 0.6 seems overly conservative at first, but i think the intent of 0.6 is to satisfy the old 1.5 factor of safety on overturning and uplift. (1/0.6 = 1.67)
so when using this load case to check sliding, would this be the case as well? since the load case only uses .6d (*coeff. friction) to resist sliding, then you would no longer use the 1.5 safety factor?
yes, the 0.6d case already has the safety factor built in.
here are some other forums discussing this:
when i calculate the uplift on the column for a moment frame or for a shear wall, the 0.6d does not include the weight of the footing. if there is net uplift at the base of the column, i need adequate dead load to resist the uplift calculated using 0.6d on the moment frame. in my opinion, the footing must be sized to provide a dead load equal to 1.5 times the uplift force. did someone already make that statement and i just missed it?
archeng, i think you're saying close to the same as everyone else. you're calculating the net uplift on the foundation using the .6d load combination. then, if you have net uplift, the resistance is provided by the weight of soil and concrete and you're using a 1.5 factor of safety for overturning. essentially, they above posters are multiplying the foundation and soil weight by .6, whereas your 1.5 factor of safety correlates to a .66 coefficient.
maybe i shouldn't try and read late in the day.
so is this a check to simply address overturning stability? do we need to review the soil bearing pressures for a footing that is subjected to a vertical load and a moment? by reducing the dead load, the eccentricity is increased and will require a larger footing than would be required to simply provide a 1.5 fs against overturning.
sme, that combination is there to address situations when increasing the dead load reduces the load effect due to other sources.
__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言:前进吧,你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]
huangyhg离线中   回复时引用此帖
GDT自动化论坛(仅游客可见)
回复


主题工具 搜索本主题
搜索本主题:

高级搜索
显示模式

发帖规则
不可以发表新主题
不可以回复主题
不可以上传附件
不可以编辑您的帖子

vB 代码开启
[IMG]代码开启
HTML代码关闭



所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 05:58 PM.


于2004年创办,几何尺寸与公差论坛"致力于产品几何量公差标准GD&T | GPS研究/CAD设计/CAM加工/CMM测量"。免责声明:论坛严禁发布色情反动言论及有关违反国家法律法规内容!情节严重者提供其IP,并配合相关部门进行严厉查处,若內容有涉及侵权,请立即联系我们QQ:44671734。注:此论坛须管理员验证方可发帖。
沪ICP备06057009号-2
更多