Search results for query: *

Assuming that the light dashed columns are consistently your columns being transferred - and the dark columns are your supporting columns - it appears that you have a number of critical flexural and shear sections that does not take advantage of the additional strength of the thicker slab...

Would you be able to post a snip of that code section?

Out-of-Plane components and cladding wind pressures, would cause out-of-plane shear and flexural behaviors into the wall.

Yes that contradiction is exactly my point - extension of bottom reinforcement at a column may provide some dowel action, but it does not provide shear friction.

Note the requirement for shear friction for the reinforcement to be fully developed. Traditionally - bottom reinforcement is not fully developed at column supports. I do not check shear friction at every monolithic pour. Agree with Greenalleycat that it is likely a better check at specific...

I lean towards cracked concrete for all post-installed anchor designs. If I need to dig further into the numbers, I tend to consider uncracked conditions for compression elements only.

Metalchair, I believe the appropriate approach is to superimposed the shear and moment diagram from the existing loading conditions (Dead, SID - single span) with the shear and moment diagram from the new loading condition (New dead, new sid, Roof Live - multispan). I don't think considering...

Getting a government agency to change the way they do things is going to take a lot more effort than getting your team to comply with their standards.

Note - if you have net tension on your pile, the shear reinforcement must be sized to resist all of the shear demand.

Beyond the strength concerns posted - without grouting at least the top course solid - you would have an empty cavity that could fill up with water, debris, bugs etc. Feels like a no-brainer to grout that section solid.

Agree with JAE on the 3 piles, or at the very least needing some consideration for stability. In addition to the IBC requirements, I typically design pile caps to account for a 3 inch placement tolerance for the location of the piles. In a 1 or 2 pile set-up, the offset can only be resisted by...

If the contractor had omitted the beam entirely, or if this was renovation project - surely most of us would come up with a drilled and epoxy'ed solution for the beam.

If there is a concern about a reduced concrete shear capacity - my first thought would be to provide a new supporting element to the opening side of the beam. Can you sneak in a HSS steel column at that location?

The beam is coupling the column and the shear wall in resisting lateral forces. A couple of options to consider to reduce this behavior: - Apply the stiffness modifiers per ACI to account for the differential cracking of these elements (reduces stiffness of beam relative to column and shear...

With the fixed based columns - these columns are participating as a vierendeel truss in transferring the loads to the supporting columns. Unless you are utilizing ETABs construction sequencing analysis, the ETABs analysis assumed that the building is all built and then applies all of the...

Similar to StrEng007's comments - I would consider a reinforced concrete tie column on either side of glazing that would continue up and cantilever beyond the roof level. Similar idea to the steel tube, but then you don't have the joint between the masonry and steel column...

Note that in addition to the lateral force of 5 kips, there is an associated moment resulting from the lateral force and the distance to the tie-off attachment point. Depending on the type of roofing assembly, this could be a significant component of the attachment and structure design. I...

In a situation such as this I think it's better to have a very well defined scope which allows for additional services for any unique conditions that are unforeseen, a strong contract with a strict limit of liability equal to your fee, and an allowance for Construction Administration that...

I would rely on defining an assembly type and then utilizing the live load ratings from ASCE 7 which most closely resembles that assembly. A lot of work went into defining the live load requirements per occupancy - I think you would spin your wheels trying to redefining it. This likely seems...

Traditionally occupancy is determined as a part of "life-safety" capacity of a space, not it's structural capacity. The Life-Safety capacity is traditionally limited by the capabilities of people to exit a building during a fire event.