Recent content by canwesteng

The thing with 7" is it is just a weird spacing to lay out, since it only rolls into a foot nicely at 7' intervals. More regular spacings, you can get a tape on them say for 9" spacing, I make sure there are four spaces in a 3' length that I tape out when checking bar. I imagine that also makes...

I've never had issues with 6" c/c spacing, though don't go much bigger than #8. I prefer 6" spacing for large mats actually, it's easier to walk on, so a bit safer. 4" would be probably be my limit, as it gets harder to get the vibrator in.

That is pretty hefty for a pile for this application. I'd expect 600-900 diameter, which can be 3D apart, would work well enough. The main thing is to remember the wind acts in any direction, and for a typical pile arrangement wind on a diagonal may well be critical.

Generally do what enable does, usually skip the bonding agent, the correct mortar and prep, and join geometry, is much more important.

That's a philosophical question. But by your definition, even a calculator does reasoning.

That's a pretty big stretch of the term reasoning - by that definition, any algorithm engages in reasoning.

Sorry, I should have said the PEMB is only stitched, not only sealed. You're on the right track then, the intermittent weld with seal welds also reduces weld inspeciton vs a full length weld

Put "seal weld remainder" in the weld tail. The PEMB column is probably already only seal welded and generally they aren't coated for use in corrosive environments, so I'd doubt this is the first thing to go, but for corrosive environments I'd also reconsider the use of HSS

Assuming the welds are the same stiffness should be conservative, as the weaker welds will attract more load than they would otherwise. I suspect the actual force distribution is going to be a function of the connected parts and not the welds, so you could look at that as well.

Elastic analysis and consider the weld group to fail when the first weld does, which could be the 3/16" weld in your case.

The harden paper puts stiffer springs on the "flanges" of the footing. There is a method in the paper to calculate the deficit as well so you could just add the rotational spring in the, i like to sanity check by applying a static twist at the center and seeing the rotation of the node to make...

Ref 3 had something on modeling the stiffness deficit but I never quite got it to work how I liked on my last project

1. You need additional rotational springs or need to adjust the base springs, to address the rotational stiffness deficit. I sometimes rigidly link the slab to a central spring with all DOF restrained, but if the slab can't be considered a rigid body, this isn't an adequate solution on its own...

"AI", or more specifically generative algorithms with transformers, will surely have a place in engineering. Think of turning laser scans into models, reading existing drawings and turning them into models or first pass prints, possibly turning sketches into draft cad files, turning physical...

I don't think a piano is that crazy to assume, a lot of people have that in their houses. I'm sure there a lots of things in a house you can think of that will meet the nominal 40 psf, at least locally.