Search results for query: *

Would a Canopy over Electrical Panels in a WWT Facility qualify for a Risk Category III (The Risk Category assigned to all structures, Seismic Design Category C, Site Class E).

JeddClampett: Improving the anchorage was a recommendation by the Design Professional we engaged. His specifications are detailed to a fault-fantastic for greenfield projects, but impractical for messy retrofit work. It is a long and sad story. At any rate, the package is going for a rebid...

Along the same lines JedClampett, would an in-kind replacement of internals qualify for any exemptions? It is a replacement and not a redesign.

Thank you JedClampett, That was exactly how I analyzed it. So short of seismically retrofitting the entire unit, there appear to be no good options for selective replacement. The system is likely to fail regardless during a seismic event, and not just due to misaligned code requirements due...

Thank you GC Hopi. To clarify: Yes we got the Structural Calcs, where the Registered Engineer stated that loads per 15.7 were not considered. The existing mechanisms, scum troughs, drives, V-notch wiers, walkways and center columns are being replaced. The existing clarifier drawings are...

As a reply to TLHS: The Structural Engineer listed this as an exclusion, and we were trying to figure out if there was any clause in the Code that stated that. (This is for replacement of Clarifier Internals, for a Project in California). The Clarifier itself is designed to 2016 (or earlier). We...

We are working on retrofitting a Clarifier with new Internal Mechanisms. The Project is located in California. The Clarifier itself was built to an earlier Code and Seismic requirements (2016). What are the compliance requirements for such a retrofit, and how can the design reconcile the...

Hi, Can anyone tell me the grounds under which the engineer would take exception to verification of loads per 15.7 (ASCE 7.16). These are for calculations for a clarifier internals replacement project. Thanks, LK