erm017 [ACL 318 App. D - Going rom 0.4 to Oversrength Facto: Does Change Anything? | SLE St SUSU SUAS Le Sakae anid ollie ok Soussily ACI 318 App. D - Going from 0.4 to Overstrength Factor: Does It Change Anything Posted on 2016-01-28 Topics: ACI 318, Anchor Provisions It seems there is no end to the confusion regarding the use of the overstrength factor required by ACI 318-11 Appendix D (also ACI 318-14 Chapter 17) when an overstrength anchor design option is chosen for preventing brittle failure of concrete anchors. A recent question we received had to do with how this overstrength option changed from ACI 318-08 to ACI 318-11, and what the implication is for the designer Just to recap, in one of our older blog posts, we discussed that ACI 318-08 Appendix D required a factor of 0.4 on the design strength of anchors in concrete as one option to prevent brittle failure, and that it was essentially the same as applying an overstrength factor, 29, of 2.5 on the total force demand on an anchor, ACI 318-11 changed this option to directly requiring an overstrength factor, but with two significant differences: instead of a flat 2.5 factor, the actual overstrength factor (as given in ASCE 7-10 including Supplement No. 1) is to be used and, more importantly, the overstrength factor applies only to the seismic component of the anchor design force, rather than the total force on the anchor. By requiring only a part of the total force demand to be amplified, the second change looks beneficial to the designer. But is it? Below is a question (paraphrased for brevity) we received recently. QIs the intent of ASCET-10 to apply the overstrength factor, Qo, to the seismic lateral force before determining overturning moment, or to apply it to the net overturning moment obtained from load combinations. The difference ‘may sound trivial but it often leads to dramatically different design forces. For example, in the cases of a very large piece of equipment supported on top of a slab, not applying Qq on the restoring moment from gravity loads increases the tension in the anchors enormously. This creates a significant design load change from ACI 318-08, which effectively amplified both the seismic and gravity components of the overturning moment, Please advise. A. ASCE 7-10 requires that the overstrength factor be applied only to the seismic lateral force effect. Thus, the omega is applied before determining the overturning moment and combining it with the resisting moment. This a change from ACI 318-08 and can either create smaller or larger anchor design forces depending on the support configurations. To step back for a moment, let's compare the design forces between ACI 318-08 and ACI 318-11. Per ACI 318-08, an anchor subject to seismic forces that was not designed to fail in a ductile manner had to be designed for a force demand given by: Q¢f1.2D + (0.5 or 1.0L) +E] or [0.9 - E] In ACI 318-11, the anchor forces to be designed for changed to that given by: 1.2D + (0.5 or 1.0L) + QE (Do you apply & to E or Qr? See here) or 0.9D - 2g Thr he cal proper oS Khas Aso I hnpsekchashassocites.cam'SKGAblop viewpost phpd=74 4eeT2017 ACI 318 App. D - Going from 0.4 to Overstrength Factor: Does lt Change Anything? ‘Now let’s see how this change affects the forces we use in anchorage design. Does this change help? No For items hung from a slab, such as pipes, where gravity loads add to the tension caused by seismic loads, the ACT 318-11 change is favorable. This is due to the fact that before the gravity loads were also multiplied by omega and now only the seismic loads are multiplied by omega, For items supported on top of slabs, such as equipment, where gravity loads reduce the tension caused by seismic loads, the ACI 318-11 change in unfavorable. This is due to the fact that the resisting moment from gravity is no longer multiplied by omega and thus the resulting tension in the anchors to resist the overturning moment is higher. Why the change between -08 and -11? The change was made because ACI Committee 318 recognized that while earthquake forces could be considerably greater than those anticipated by the IBC or ASCE 7, it is difficult to see how forces due to gravity could be higher or lower than anticipated by more than the load factors already used in design. Thus, applying the overstrength factor to non-earthquake forces was not a tenable proposition. Thr the eto property of Kot Aso Is hnpsekchashassocites.cam'SKGAblop viewpost phpd=74