F=ma is the static force, where a is g. To calculate the force from a person landing on it, you need to know how fast they decelerate (you don't) or over what distance they decelerate (you could guess). I'd do what TLHS suggest and compare to a fall arrest force from OSHA.
I think the welder will do it in stitches to limit heat but you end up with a continuous weld in the end, if you call out a continuous weld. You would also only have to set up to weld in one location
I would lean to b. Certainly don't agree with 3.4 as there is a huge eccentricity in your connection not present in a knife plate connection. Stitch welds are highly unusual for tension members, why would you not put all the weld in one place?
Yeah the PE is a cakewalk now that it is structural only, no breadth. I don't think memorizing page numbers is ever advisable, try and remember clauses or chapters. You can always search for those
That is a fairly small pump. I guess the question is how much experience does the vendor have? Their statement doesn't seem outrageous on the face of it.
I'm thinking the same. I don't there are much for mortise and tenon checks in the code though. The joint should be much worse than my situation in terms of the material being notched and the fact that there are still vertical notches.
I'm cutting down the width of a sawn beam to fit in a seat. To my knowledge CSA086/NDS definition of notches is for notches reducing the vertical height of the timber. Is there any restriction on cutting down the width? Of course, the net section will be checked for bearing/shear, etc...
LFRD is better, but instead of FOS it relies on a reliability index to ensure designs are safe, based on some statistical analysis. If restorative and counteractive dead loads have the same factor, how do you meet the reliability index that is the basis of the code?
Second Bulb - if you're ready for the SE the PE exam will be trivial and will help you get licensed in most states anyway. If not, it is a good wake up call. For SE you need to be very familiar with the handbook and how to use the design aids there and in the reference specs in order to succeed.
Sure, you don't need to meet a FOS anymore, but you should have a sufficient reliability index to resist overturning. That is the fundamental of LFRD design, but can be harder to grasp, so FOS is a good illustration. If you want to apply the same factor to the horizontal and vertical load, show...
Well I'd say EC are quite good at making simple things complex, and not always in the spirit of making them more accurate.
In the hypothetical case we pretend the footing is weightless, I'm not sure how you easily achieve a factor of safety of 1.5. The only loads on it are the dead load...
The best analogy to using eurocode is like cutting a load of bread with a scalpel. It gives the illusion of precision at the cost of great pains. If you were to go back to the old ASD ways, you might factor all loads with 1 and need a factor of safety of 1.5. How do you achieve that if the...
I'm just as confused as you as to what you should be studying. Are you studying for the SE or PE? The civil PE handbook is for the PE, and the structural handbook is for the SE.
That could be, if you find any material on this I'd like to read it. I'd guess that it should still be greater than the bearing strength of a pin though.
Is the cantilever causing in plane or out of plane bending? And which code excatly? IBC does allow you to consider two times the simple span deflection for cantilevers
The reason the bearing capacity is different for a pin is because you are expecting rotation, so you can't allow deformation at the hole. In this case, you still have the same bearing capacity as if the bolts were tightened, unless you plan to be letting the bolts spin around in the holes. The...
The breadth was not very hard. Practice with one screen and digital codes. Be familiar with design aids. Not writing depth til April, but I've heard the time crunch on that one is very real.
You'd need some way to capture initial imperfections, with thin plates they are quite sensitive to initial imperfections and also are likely to buckle inelastically. Might be pretty heavy FEA but doesn't seem worth it for a sea can.
I'm curious about the FEA approach for sea can design. Suppose you are comparing principal stresses to some published values for buckling for corrugated steel?
