Not sure that it being uniform is the reason it is of little importance, but it is pretty thin (probably 50 or 100 thick) relative to the soil, so most deflection should still come from the soil, even if the soil is stiffer.
I'd like to hear from others. Haven't got any push back from contractors, clients or concrete plants doing this but I'll confess I just invented putting multiple classes on the drawing on my own, in lieu of some verbose requirements copy pasted from A23.1
I put both in the notes - since for sulphate and chlorides you won't necessarily have one be critical. I guess you could just write out the requirements otherwise
My condolences for having to use EC to design crane runways. I recommend double checking that this isn't referring to a combo of building lateral deflection, beam sweep, and thermal effects. The intent appears to be to prevent skewing or having the wheels rub on the rail, not restrict lateral...
You guys have problems with the models from the EOR? I've had no issues and seem to get better results handing our steel models in .ifc to detailers. Then again, this is industrial, arch is not making the models.
The horizontal shear at the top of the side plates is zero. The only area where shear can be anything but zero is at the corner of the side plate and existing web - but in any case this is the same amount of shear in the web as was there before the plating.
The rotation provided by 1/16 oversize bolt holes is not all that significant and is present in any splice plate moment connection anyway. They are called pins because they have been shown to have the flexibility or ductility to behave as a pin.
They recently changed these to be structural only. If you felt moderately confident with the lateral exams and are already studying for the vertical, you don't need to study for the PE. Having gone in quick succession PE>SE vertical (B+D) (holding off on vert D until next spring with the longer...
It is certainly conventionally treated as a pin condition. Provided there is a sufficiently stiff load path above the base plate, you are ok to call it as a pin.
If no lateral load on the support and the beam is rotationally supported from framing elements at the level of the beam, there is nothing to really check. At some point a stack of shims under a stiffened beam might not provide enough rotational stability, though I would think that's taller than 4"
Why even replace this with concrete? Grating is cheap and easy, maybe too ugly, wood could be used and have some kind architectural cover. If you need something that looks exactly like this, then just leave it in place.
Well the linearity of the material would matter, since something like reinforced concrete would be become less stiff as it is loaded, though the question seems more theoretical. I suspect for any practical case you don't really need to account for large displacements causing membrane stresses in...
It's an interesting though that hasn't generated as much discussion as I would have hoped. Up north, we are designing pedestals as concrete not detailed for seismic resistance but bumping up forces by something analogous to the overstrength factor. I generally steer clear of AISC 341 anytime...
Since they are full of holes, it's not likely to have much torsional strength, and it would be a huge science project to figure out the capacity anyway. You're better off getting rid of the torsion.
If you aren't actually relying on the bending capacity at the corner, then go with the second detail and call it a day, no need to check development length.
I couldn't digest this entirely - but I ran my own check and also got the same answer except with 37.5 degrees being from the vertical line and not the horizontal one. I think that makes more sense - the wider the plate the closer it comes to just folding in the middle.