I agree!
Looks like this has changed for ASCE 7-16. See below:
I believe the rationale that O’rourke uses is that one of the two will control so there’s no reason to consider them simultaneously, except for in the case of RTUs. The drift provisions are predominantly empirical.
All this is...
Engineers’ value shows up more in very-high-end residential.
I’m currently dealing with a multi-phase residential project (100s of houses) in MD wherein a licensed architect performed/sealed 100% of the design but performed no CA. Contractor was delighted not to have to deal with an engineer /...
Sounds like they aren’t applying for permits to begin with, which isn’t uncommon in residential. (Permits drive up the contractors’ cost-to-perform, according to them.) The permit triggers the building department (if you even have one) to follow up with inspections, withholding the CO until...
For this particular scenario (square), Ao = Aoi (or slightly less), so you end up with partially open.
Were the same building more of a rectangle, then you could end up with a scenario wherein wind incident on the open corner resolves into smaller, vector-component qhs normal to the open walls...
WW drift is 100% efficient as it fills. LW drift is presumably about 50% efficient as it fills. For both, efficiency drops to nominally 0 once the drift polygon is "filled up." When snow particles begin to "saltate" or jump over the WW wall/step via ramp (Chapter 8 / Paragraph 5), the trapping...
Yep. Resolve load into the coordinate system of the nail. Per your arrow, the toenail goes into combined withdrawal and shear, which is pretty normal for a toenail, as @XR250 alluded.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't see how the beam stiffness is relevant at all. It's constant, so the load going to each support is unchanged with different beam sizes. I'd agree if Ix varied. See below...top models are 2x3 DF-N, bottom models are (6)-2x12. Prying is unavoidable (unless...
Agree with releases and support idealizations. Disagree that neglecting gravity is the move.
Parametrize the brace locations but keep them at 45s.
Lateral: shifting braces towards posts generates very high axial brace forces and vice versa.
Gravity: opposite of lateral.
Sweet spot should be...
I could see a clash where the rim-board-as-header is strapped for continuity. Give thought to how much space you’ll need on the inboard face of the rim board to dedicate to straps relative to the truss hangers.
Not uncommon to use rim board as header for full-height openings. I can’t weigh in on the truss bit, as I’ve never dealt with this situation, which is basically a rim board at the roof instead of at the floor.
Your computed axial shortening is at midspan, at the point of maximum moment, right? Maybe I’m just tired from work, but I feel that the axial chord force would be zero at the ends, as the moment is zero. Apologies if I’ve missed something obvious; I should do as you did and convince myself with...
If you can, then use anchor reinforcement, which transfers load from the anchors to the structure. Anchor reinforcement precludes concrete breakout completely. Refer to 17.5.2.1 of ACI 318-19(22); you're just developing steel with 70 kips on either side of the breakout plane.
Supplementary...
Doesn’t OSHA require 4 anchor bolts minimum per column?
Anyway, your post reminded me of this video @ 26:07.
1. Guy up the frame until it aligns. Presumably, your design accounted for initial imperfections and resultant secondary stresses.
2. Nothing conceptually wrong with encasing with...
Giving OP some grace: Anything can be made to work, but I still prefer the first detail. I haven't seen the second detail, either, and it presents a couple of questions. Are both columns stressed equally enough that a crack won't develop through the reentrant corners? Are the bearing pressures...
