Recent content by canwesteng

No need for a different hole layout for the TC bolts, just treat them like regular bolts.

The 3 pile layout is still common though, and rebar is detailed without going diagonally generally.

Same way orthogonal reinforcing is justified in any two way slab or strut and tie model.

You'd want stiffeners matching the column flange full depth in the W27, and a fly brace on one side of the W27 where it bears on the column to a perpendicular member, at a minimum. Then there is the question of if the flange is thick enough for the bending. Certainly can be done safely though...

I've never treated it like that, since that clause is giving forces for the SFRS, but I can understand how it's read like that. It doesn't seem to make much difference anyway, since it tells you to design for the building components you would have to design for in 4.1.8.18, and doesn't mention...

For the elements, you go to 4.1.8.18.2 and determine if they need to be attached for seismic forces, independent of the building analysis check. The weights contribute to the seismic mass either way though, so it shouldn't affect foundations. I don't think 4.1.8.1 is meant to let you get out of...

You are anchoring misc components from the PEMB? I'm used to these just being basic warehouses. If you go to 4.1.8.16, you're going to need the RdRo=1 forces anyway for the foundation, so some of this is moot, but if you are permitted to use the simplified method, then conventional construction...

You don't even need a gap, without any jacking the post will already only see live loads. Another option instead of a slab is a big steel base plate to spread load out over the SoG

Could saw the flanges of the LVL at the support maybe

Spend some time here, do some light reading (the best text recommendations have also come from here). Studying for the SE has also been good to me, opened my eyes to some stuff I don't deal with (unfortunately also exposed me to bridges).

Hopefully just a simple shear connection... OP - if the holes are filled with bolts, I would not worry about the coating.

What you have looks to be a conservative approach for both the beam widths and unity checks. You could go with a yield line approach and get a lot more capacity and still have it as a hand calc

Cantilevered columns are not ok for post disaster. You can see if the AHJ will accept SCCS through AISC 341 but there is no system in S16 for these to be used with R=2

Geotechs may recommend bond break or a backfill material that won't adhere to the foundation for shallow foundations. Given that the concrete isn't cast against the earth I don't see there being as much friction anyway.

Same thing that holds the pier up, friction with the soil. If the soil wants to move up, friction pulls it up