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


 
 
主题工具 搜索本主题 显示模式
旧 2009-09-07, 09:54 AM   #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 aci anchor checks

aci anchor checks
i use asd for my steel design, even with the new code. i know how to use lrfd and am fairly comfortable with it if need be. i have a question though with checking anchor bolts. for a typical industrial structure bent frame (non-building) we typically have a light framed (conveyor) supported at elevation. this gives us a typical wind load uplift at the base plate under dl - wl. all other loadings aside (seismic, etc) what load combination are people actually using in the appendix d design method. we used to design the anchors using asd based on the dl - wl case. looking at the lrfd load combinations the only case that gives us the same (dl & wl) only is the 0.9dl - 1.6wl. this is comparable to the 0.6dl - wl case and is more of a stability case. it seems to me that this is really conservative when the anchor would have a fs = 1.67 using the asd method but more like 3.3 using the lrfd method. it seems that their should be another case to use for design of anchorages. maybe i am missing it so i would like to hear from others on their opinions of this. what i have done (i know their will be plenty telling me how wrong this is) is take my dl - wl result, multiply it by 1.5, and then do the appendix d calculations. this is comparable to the comparison on load factors and safety factors between lrfd and asd. doing the calculations in this method gives me similar anchors and i feel like it is reasonable. if this is completly wrong then i guess i have a lot of structures out their that are going to falling down in short order.
i look forward to your feedback.
i generally use asd loads also. i think the 0.6d+1.0wl is not just a stability combination although i know a lot of folks look at it that way. i apply it to the anchors. i take (0.6xdl-1.0xwl) and then multiply by 1.5 to use appendix d.
i think when you use aisc asd,you must use 0.6 d.l+ 1.0 w.l
when using aisc lrfd,you must use 0.9 d.l+ 1.6 w.l
and the ratio of wind/dead is about 0.6 for the two codes.
__________________
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)
 


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

相似的主题
主题 主题发起者 论坛 回复 最后发表
aci 350-06 required by ibc 06 huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 09:50 AM
aci 318 appendix d huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 09:42 AM
aci 313 overpressure factor huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 09:39 AM
【转帖】哪位高手指点一下下边lisp的怎么用 yang686526 数据库ObjectDBX 0 2009-04-28 12:13 PM
哪位高手指点一下下边lisp的怎么用 yang686526 ObjectARX(AutoLISP) 0 2009-04-26 06:19 PM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 12:46 AM.


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