Vulcraft's 2001 steel deck diaphragm tables (p.67) notes that a 1/3 increase has already been taken for short term loads and the values should not be increased again. Since ASCE7 does not recognize a 1/3 increase for dead and wind only, shouldn't the values in the diaphragm tables therefore be multiplied by 0.75 to account for this? Is everyone else doing this?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Steel diaph. and 1/3 increase
- Thread starter haynewp
- Start date
ASCE 7 never deals with the 1/3 stress increase as it only deals with loads....not design.
IBC 2000 has monkeyed with the 1/3 stress increase to limit its use for load combinations that have two or more transient loads included in the combo.
So I would agree that the 0.75 factor should be used (under the IBC) for load combinations such as 0.6D + W or 0.6D + 0.7E but not for load combos such as D + W + L + Lr.
I'm not sure where it is, but there was a good thread discussing the 1/3 issue relative to the IBC.
IBC 2000 has monkeyed with the 1/3 stress increase to limit its use for load combinations that have two or more transient loads included in the combo.
So I would agree that the 0.75 factor should be used (under the IBC) for load combinations such as 0.6D + W or 0.6D + 0.7E but not for load combos such as D + W + L + Lr.
I'm not sure where it is, but there was a good thread discussing the 1/3 issue relative to the IBC.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question