bdruehl
Civil/Environmental
- Oct 27, 2004
- 92
thread507-352021
so, ya.. kinda clear as mud as far the application i need clarity on (unless ofcourse im reading it wrong again)....
when you are doing footing designs for METAL Building frames with no slab to count for contributory weight, it is a BIG DEAL to have to reduce your required concrete footing weight to .6D to counteract the uplift .9D would be acceptable, but how bout a similar note as ASCE 12.13.14 regarding an additional 25% overturning (uplift) reduction for seismic, but for wind instead ... is there one for wind? That would make the footings more manageable. Despite my love of conservativism, I have a hard time justifying the need for say 250 yards in a footing as opposed to 160 because of the 0.6D we are all used to.
so, ya.. kinda clear as mud as far the application i need clarity on (unless ofcourse im reading it wrong again)....
when you are doing footing designs for METAL Building frames with no slab to count for contributory weight, it is a BIG DEAL to have to reduce your required concrete footing weight to .6D to counteract the uplift .9D would be acceptable, but how bout a similar note as ASCE 12.13.14 regarding an additional 25% overturning (uplift) reduction for seismic, but for wind instead ... is there one for wind? That would make the footings more manageable. Despite my love of conservativism, I have a hard time justifying the need for say 250 yards in a footing as opposed to 160 because of the 0.6D we are all used to.