Search results for query: *

why are you doing this?

If it makes you feel better (worse?), this is also happening for other elements. We had a thread a couple months ago where we dug into some tables and there are lots of little factors in part 9 that don't align even in the parts that you would expect to align. The Engineering Guide for Wood...

There's a couple of issues I see with doing it your way: 1. There's a failure mechanism you're missing. It can fail at the interface between the 450mm and 1150mm slab, it's just not something we'd normally check because with a consistent thickness we know that this is a stronger failure point...

If I were to put a note, I would put "Beam xxx sized based on Part 4 methods to account for xxx loading. All other beams by architect/designer/whoever." If you want to explicitly cover them, I'd replace the second sentence with "All other beams sized as per clause 9.x.x"

For people discussing test format, I'm personally a much bigger fan of the IStructE style of exam. Get a bunch of options, pick the one you actually know things about because it's what your practice is based on, and then do a series of conceptual and design questions about that project. You...

Wait, is this two existing buildings, or is this one existing building that a new one is getting installed directly beside? How close are they?

Subheading E on page 34 of that report titled "The Narrow Focus of Structural Engineering" is the thing that's a problem with the push to fully silo off Structural Engineering as a qualification. It basically just handwaves an assumption that structural engineering is now completely specialized...

You're worried about into the page forces here? I wouldn't resolve piping seismic forces on any reasonable sized pipe purely in column torsion unless that torsional stress if completely insignificant and is resolved very very locally. If it's a long run of piping I wouldn't be transfering the...

Key question for me is what the lateral loading condition is? I have more concerns if this is an area where there's significant seismic demand, as the lack of reinforcement could lead to significant loss of material if there's an appreciable shear load in this zone that hammers in cycles. Same...

I might do the punching shear by default, but I think it's probably more defensible to do an anchorage check, but potentially projecting from the edges of the bearing plate if it's pretty stiff. But honestly, if it is close to failure I'd be worried about a bunch of other local issues as well...

jhnblgr is saying the analysis effort is a waste of time because the method you're using isn't really relevant. A thin unreinforced or underreinforced slab is only an elastic mat for a very small range of loads before cracking and if you treat it like one then everything is going to show it...

Fair enough! The plus side of BS8110 being an older code is that there's less demand for books and things, and they look like they're cheap or long ago scanned. You should get yourself a book or two that walks through full building and/or scheme design. I'm not a BS code person, so I'm not...

Comedy, but realistic, option. One engineer sketched up an end plate not connected to the bottom flange to avoid moment transfer, and then another engineer reviewed the shop drawings and didn't like the lack of restraint and added a stiffener to create fixity.

Man, 27" beam with like a 13+" width on a 6" column. Reasons I can think of: -Just not liking the stiffness variation between top and bottom and eyeballing in a load path they like better -Wanting to laterally restrain the bottom of the beam more rigidly, maybe being really explicit on...

Greenalleycat, I generally agree with you, but to defend bookowski a little bit, the argument isn't that the building is okay for seismic loading because it used to have a top floor. It's that the building is potentially grandfathered into not necessarily needing to be 'okay' because it's...

I wouldn't say that you should assume the worst case condition. The rating should be for something specific. Why do they want the rating? The flange local bending stuff tends to govern in the modern CMAA style formulations, so having clear requirements for wheel or clamp locations is pretty...

Where is BS8110 current code? I've used it for reference, but hasn't it been replaced by the Eurocode based BS standards for a decade or two?

You can try assuming a fully non-ductile system as a worst case. If that explodes, then without retrofit you can also do the drift based evaluation stuff in ASCE 47 with the values for the system you get from the screening. Haven't used the latest one, but it's not crazily hard for fairly...

Brad, I'd disagree. Seismic risk specifically is a tricky thing and owners aren't really in a great place to make informed decisions on it. It's the only area of code where we basically say that a design case is allowed to be broken, it's just not allowed to fall down and kill people...

Reinforcing isn't going to add any reasonable stiffness for this kind of situation. Thickness will. If you just need a foot more bearing width, have you considered trying to account for a layer of nice granular base? A well compacted granular material over a softer foundation soil will spread...