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 2009-09-07, 01:24 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 asce-5 combinations used at soil-structure interface

asce-5 combinations used at soil-structure interface
i have a discussion with my coworker about footing design subjected to vertical forces due to d, l, and e loads. the soil report permits a 1/3 increase in allowable soil stress for transient load conditions.
i say the following points,
1. to get the max expected soil compression stress and the required footing horizontal dimensions, it is better to use the asd combination in asce-05, (d+0.75x0.7e +0.75l), where e=eh+ev (e is reduced by 25% according to asce-05 item 12.13.4).
2. to get the max expected soil tension stress, it is better to use the asd combination in asce-05, (0.6d+0.7e), where e=eh (e is reduced by 25% according to asce-05 item 12.13.4 and ev=0 according to asce-05 item 12.4.2.2 exception 2).
3. to design the footing (depth & reinforcement) it is better to use strength design combination in asce-05, (1.2d+0.5l+e), where e=eh+ev (no reduction for e by 25% according to asce-05 item 12.13.4).
4. to check the soil bearing capacity we should follow the soil report in permitting a 1/3 increase in allowable soil stress for transient load conditions
my coworker says,
? in point no.1 we should not use e=eh+ev but we should use e=eh because asce-05 item 12.4.2.2 exception 2 tells in determining demands on the soil-structure interface of foundations ev should be zero.
? in point no.4 no increase in allowable soil stress for transient load conditions according to ibc-2006 item 1605.3.1.1.
any one can give professional comments about my three assumptions as well as my friend point of view?

i agree with your co-worker's second bullet item, unless you use the alternate load combinations which ends up being pretty close to a wash.
as for your assumptions, i suppose they seem reasonable, but i would say that you need to check every load combination, not just the one you think will govern.
1. no comment on point 1.
2. for point 4, suggest to check it with your geotechical engineer to see if his recommedation is in accompliance with the governing code. he might have took that (reduction) into consideration already.
__________________
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

相似的主题
主题 主题发起者 论坛 回复 最后发表
asce 7-05 open building gable wind loading huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 01:08 PM
asce 7-05 load combinations huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 01:08 PM
asce 17-96 para. 4.2.5 load combinations seiasce 7-02 com huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 12:54 PM
are asce 7-02 wind loads ultimate or service level huangyhg 产品功能分析 0 2009-09-07 12:46 PM
【转帖】interface control dwgs yang686526 American standards 0 2009-04-29 08:33 PM


所有的时间均为北京时间。 现在的时间是 06:33 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