Search results for query: *

Yes, reinforcement predicted to be required.

Never provided demo plans specifically, don't intend to. Arch provides demo plans. Doesn't mean never saying anything about what existing items might need to be "demo'd" but not a standalone plan. Specific notes on the new construction documents would cover things like remove/replace items, etc.

I echo jayrod12's comments Start the negotiation at an inch depth per foot span and usually land somewhere in the 75-90% of that depth range. Span ratios only go so far and absolute deflection accommodation must be considered. You want to stick in the bounds of typical products - fastcap...

I see it going like 271828 says and not being that big of a deal. Code is free... All the goodies in the manual, the commentary, etc are going to be the "premium package" for a bit of $$. Seems to work for AISC, I still will gladly pay the money for the front part of the bible. IBC is...

I went and looked at some more trusses in other locations that were exposed, and sure enough this is a pretty common condition. The black paint that was applied to the freshly installed trusses just makes those little splits pop out visually.

kipfoot, you've hit on one of my issues. I don't believe the tension capacity really is compromised here. But the issue has been raised and the truss supplier has recommended a fix, and that fix is realistically unreasonable to construct. So now I'm trying to come up with some compromise where...

Hello everyone, would love second opinions on a wood truss repair. I've got a series of wood roof trusses ~5 years old and they show signs of minor splitting at their bottom chord splice locations. See picture below, bit hard to see. Uniform across almost all the new trusses. To me it appears...

Just like a continuous plate where the SIP has a location for it to slot over, you can still use the structural sub-fascia idea. They'll have to leave that blocked out on however many panels you need then field install the continuous sub-fascia from corner back onto the adjacent SIPs. Those...

I sure like positive attachment... I'd cast a vote for PAF or some screws, although I suppose a self-drilling/tapping fastener is sort of still drilling on site. Second thought - is your load eccentric as indicated in the sketch? That will naturally help the whole assembly from slipping along...

Better or worse than over-addition of water for a nice easy pourable "mix"? I'd probably vote worse still, at least with too much water you're still actually mixing it thoroughly (presumably). But it might be closer than you'd think...

That's our standard way of detailing it.

If you find it, make sure to follow up here. I don't know of a hard limit, just the aspect ratio limits, limits on open fronts and cantilevers. Perhaps in the prescriptive section of the code or the IRC side of things, neither of which I venture into. There is probably a practical limit related...

SPDWS has some aspect ratio limitations

So very true in my experience.

^^ Ditto what Aesur said. $8500 is comically low IMO Even at 30k, that's still only 33 cents/ft... starting to get there. Defend the value you bring to the project as the engineer. 30-50 cents per square foot out of what total construction cost these days? It's a drop in the bucket.

Is there any guidance in AISI? Your weld may be governed by the light gage welding provisions with the 12 ga side of things.

Agree with jdcollins. Recently specified a similar small step in the surface of a COMD into a bathroom so that the architect could flush out finishes and provide a small slope to drain. No special framing, didn't get any questions about it, they did it successfully, and I actually don't know...

Never had a problem with standard holes when they're required in situations like this. In fact, I have had erectors say they preferred them over short slotted - less slop when going to plumb/square things up.

I'm unsure of your particular condition, but aren't there usually other seismic system exceptions for "maximum load that can be delivered to the system" i.e. you design just up to the load that causes overturning in the foundation? If omega = 2.5 is an unstable condition, then that load input...

W getting larger (and the aspect ratio smaller) is surely better, hence no limitations in the SPDWS... I'd say it's fair and code-compliant to ignore the portal frames. But if I were doing it myself I would likely envelope some portion of load to the portal frames.