Search results for query: *

Guidelines for Resolution of Steel Bridge Fabrication Errors See page 6

I would skip the grout and use the opportunity to put a drain hole in the base plate itself.

There are folks that have criticized these products publicly that have gotten cease and desist letters from the manufacturers. This is one of those topics that bothers me personally on a deep level. Obvious structural complications aside, good luck achieving any reasonable level of air sealing...

I shouldn't be surprised and yet here I am scratching my head at how this sort of change happened in an Errata. Thank you for pointing this out.

My personal preference is to avoid 180° hooks on drilled shafts if possible to eliminate construction issues with tremies, beam reinforcing, etc. For that reason, it makes more sense to consider option 2. YMMV

I'll share an anecdote. I had a delegated designer say a lot of negative things about the design that I had issued right in front of the owner. They didn't know the background of the project or the owner's wishes for the "look". We arranged a lunch meeting later where I approached the meeting...

AISC Design Guide 34 has some good information about this topic.

Late to the party but... My wife is an architect and we are hit up constantly for free design work. The only times it seems to be worth the effort is when the recipient is actually appreciative for the advice. A lot of the time folks just want to hear what they want. When the truth doesn't...

It appears they took Josh's idea and came out with something similar. See https://risa.com/products/risacalc from here. Has anyone tried it out and have experience they would be willing to share? It looks like it is meant to compete with Enercalc, Tedds, Vitruvius Project, etc.

Reading fail on my part...

It's not always the deflection limit that is important but using the different stiffnesses of the shear wall segments so that the load sharing can be appropriately determined for each segment.

You can use Cr = 1.35 for 2x6 studs if you meet the criteria listed in SDPWS §3.1.1.1

This one?https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=2023fe36-6b63-4720-ba0d-03ec262a8a4f&file=StepUp_Scaffolding_catalog_2013.pdf

4.7.2 Exception

NSPE has a list put together. Free if you are a member, $10 if not. https://www.nspe.org/shop/product/digital-signing-and-sealing-engineering-documents

There are specific maps for 10 year MRI wind speeds in the commentary of both ASCE 7-10 & 7-16. There is discussion about how some of those are derived in the commentary. My recommendation would be to use the maps in the commentary or the websites above that list 10, 25, 50, and 100 year MRI...

https://asce7hazardtool.online/ https://hazards.atcouncil.org/

There are roughly 19,000 active civil and structural engineers that live in and are licensed in Texas. Of those, 3,100 have specifically identified themselves as structural to the state board. I think you could safely use that as a lower bound for the target market in Texas.

Is this truly the case? Are they flailing because of the subscription model?

It's always up-to-date. No more downloading updates or dealing with compatibility issues between versions of software.