Search results for query: *

Some more load info BTW: Low roof trib is about 32'. High roof trib is 12', but its a 8" conc slab. Roof LL=30 Kaiser

Please indicate what reinf. you have in the beam. Typically, if a masonry or concrete beam works for bending and shear, I wouldn't worry about deflection. Masonry and concrete is a lot stiffer then steel, to put it in layman's terms. Kaiser

This is renovation to an existing building, the opening is new. Load coming down on the beam is quite high = 5.1 klf W30 was designed as unbraced entire length ti limit deflection to 0.3". HSS columns are 7x7x5/8 and when I ran them in RISA with e=1", the deflection or drift @ top came out to...

When are we going to start charging meteorologists here in the US!!! Kaiser

Hokie: I checked the drawings again and the section over the beam clearly shows a 1" gap. I was actually going to post the section here but the boss gave us half a day off so I left work as soon as I could :) The - in 23 is too high to be a negative, and the decimal point is similarly because...

Actually the beam is W30x108 and the opening is large, 22'. So I have HSS column supports on each end, KL=2x10'. It wasn't my design (now I guess it is), I am putting out fires for someone not working here any longer. When I saw this huge opening in the wall in the field, I thought I had to...

The attached sketch shows the situation. Its for a proposed new opening. After running some load checks, the resultant e is about .6" to the right of centerline in the sketch, so I am not as worried as I was a day ago. And I am glad to have posted this question. What BAretired suggested makes a...

No, I guess someone else must have been logged from our office full internet access computer. But the last post with the sketch was supposed to be from me, Kaiser. Kaiser

As the topic suggests my question is in regards to eccentric loads on beams. Say I have a 12" cmu sitting on a W30. Technically if the lintel is 2" off of center line, I would consider e=2" on my beam but from a practical point of view, wouldn't the load coming down into the cmu re-align to some...

hokie, this is a very late reply but actually the joists from each side bear on the beam in the middle and the drawings show a 1" filler between the two. so they are not connected and not designed for any negative moment. Kaiser

Yeah I called the city and he didn't know what the heck I was talking about. So I am just going to go ahead and include some the sp. inspections. Kaiser

I don't like the idea of a free standing column, even if its designed with the K=2.0. I have always braced columns in both direction, and a couple of times even though the columns were for large lintels and hence they needed not to go up to the roof, but I made clear in the column sched. that...

I just did something like this on a public building but I had to analyze the roof structure for it. Keep in mind that if the panels are in "portrait" mode, then you are adding a lot of wind to the building. I would hire a structural engineer to evaluate the existing roof. Kaiser

I am working on renovations to an existing gym. The renovations are minor including replacement of a slab on grade, a couple of 8’x12’ floor infill and then placement of a new RTU on the existing roof with a couple of openings in the existing roof as well. My interpretation of section 1704...

After putting some thought into it and also taking into account the fact that ASD 9th edition allows a max deck size of 3" for composite action, I agree with hokie that indeed he solved the riddle correctly and the deck is 2". Thank you for help guys. Kaiser

Jed: Thanks buddy for going thru the trouble of posting this catalog, it will be part of my archives. Again, many thanks. Kaiser

I am checking an existing composite floor structure for some new loads. Structure was built in 1981. The section thru the floor suggests: t=2", t1=6".......which I am taking to mean that the deck is a 4" deep deck. The sketch shows t&b rebar in each flute, so I am trying to get a general idea of...

BTW the reason I got caught in two minds is that there is a note on the drawings (kinda shows up at the edge of the attached) saying “ 17 spaces @ 5’-0” = 85’-0” Kaiser

Hokie, one side is 23' while the other is 64' and hence the different moments. Heck, I'll just check if the new stresses are within the 5% allowance and call it a day. Kaiser

Mike, the drawings are from 1968. I did a dead load check but there are two ways to go about it. Originally I checked a single T and compared it to the moment on the drawing, which I thought was unfactored. Then it occurred to me, what if the moment on the drawings is for the whole section (2...