Recent content by labeattie

KootK: You don't think the extra footing on a single side could resist settlement greater on that side and cause the whole thing to begin to tilt? Anyways I'm sure that effect is small or at least nowhere near what my rigid footing calcs show. And great point about the settlement.

I had the self-weight in my real calc, just added in via superposition of a constant, rectangular amount. This should give the same result (I think) as using that equation with an adjusted eccentricity, and just increases the maximum pressure a little. So according to the numbers I'm still...

And regarding the canoe analogy, I was imagining standing in the middle of a canoe, and then one side begins to get wider. The side that I am now farther toward would poke further down into the water. Don't know if that illuminated or obfuscated the issue, but it was how my thinking progressed!

Thanks everybody for the responses. I'm starting to buy it. The canoe example was a real brain buster, but is really bringing me around. I will add that the maximum bearing pressure being greater than allowable doesn't necessarily constitute instability or failure, as the pressure would...

Hi all, I'm having a frustrating problem that I would think has an easy answer. I'm designing a wall footing for bearing pressure right now, and can only increase the footing dimension in one direction. Imagine my surprise when my calculations say adding a foot in one direction of a footing...

Gotcha. Thank you for the advice. I appreciate it.

Thanks JAE. I do think that diagonal wind on the inside of building will create a greater force than that same wind on the exterior, as it can't escape by flowing over the roof. From my limited understanding, I think that is what the Cpi coefficient tries to account for, so I threw that into...

Does something like this seem plausible?http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=9ad6940a-3752-4016-84b5-b1867c2dc1ea&file=20150205110425.pdf

Hi all, I am having trouble figuring out how to get started on finding the wind loads (from ASCE 7-10) for a metal building open on 2 sides. The configuration looks something like the picture from Google that I've attached. The diagonal cases seem particularly weird, and I wasn't sure how to...

Fair enough. Perhaps it's just my inexperience that was preventing me from making a similar statement. However I wasn't too worried about the 4" spaced stirrups in this particular case, and seeing your all's opinions reinforces mine. Thanks!

I didn't see that as a logic problem, just that you can only count on up to 8*sqrt(f'c)*bw*d from you stirrups. As in I thought you could put enough steel in there that eqn 11-15 gives a result greater than 8*sqrt(f'c)*bw*d, but you can't assume that the stirrups will absorb more shear than...

That is a suspicion/hope I have, but I don't currently see any support for it. I very well might be missing something though.

Even if I double the web width and increase f'c from 3 to 4 ksi, Vu is still greater than Vc. This configuration is indeed exempt from Vu<Vc/2, but I need stirrups nonetheless. Thanks for your help though. It's very much appreciated. Any ideas on the 11.5.5.3 I mentioned above? I definitely get...

No I don't think there's a very good way for me to get it so that Vu<Vc/2. And fair enough on it is what it is. I guess those shear cracks have to catch up to a stirrup. I have one more question regarding this though. On 11.5.5.3 it says "where Vs exceeds 4*sqrt(f'c)*bw*d, maximum spacings...

I do need stirrups, and, strictly structurally, #3's @ 12" work. The mesh drape is a good idea and a real possibility. I would prefer to use bars though. I just didn't know if anyone had run across something similar. Is mesh the only way to deal with this, excepting unreasonable 4.5" stirrups...