Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Search results for query: *

  1. Cpw628

    Concurrent Active and Counteractive Dead Load

    Interesting discussion, I have not heard about this idea before. If anyone has done it with IBC or ASCE 7 load cases I would be interested in how you did it
  2. Cpw628

    Steel design aid (AISC 360-22) - sharing the tool

    I’m commenting to ask if you can update us if/when it gets published. I would be interested to see if it would be useful for my work. I’d also be willing to look over it before you publish to see if I can spot anything major
  3. Cpw628

    How far to apply non-structural loads vs structural loads (ASCE 7-16)

    I think that exception only applies if you also meet the detailing requirements of AISC 341.
  4. Cpw628

    How far to apply non-structural loads vs structural loads (ASCE 7-16)

    It uses Chapter 15 SOMF with permitted height increase. The frame was built well before AISC 341 was a thing, so it does not meet any special detailing requirements.
  5. Cpw628

    How far to apply non-structural loads vs structural loads (ASCE 7-16)

    Mikek36, both your points are spot on, which is why I am asking. The higher forces would require a reinforcement, while the smaller ones would not. Additionally, the rack is also repeated many times, so that is correct that it wouldn’t be cheap to reinforce. JLNJ, the pipe rack is a moment...
  6. Cpw628

    How far to apply non-structural loads vs structural loads (ASCE 7-16)

    I am looking at a pipe rack that is going to add a new pipe with ASCE 7-16 loads. There has been discussion in my office about how to apply the non-structural pipe loads to the rack. Because it is ASME piping, the R factor per ASCE 7 Chapter 13 is 12. This compares to the R factor of 1 for the...
  7. Cpw628

    IBC Presumptive Load Bearing Values and Safety Factors

    I am wondering if other engineers use safety factors on the 2021 IBC presumptive load bearing values or overturning checks. Everyone at my office just uses a 1.5 safety factor on all overturning, sliding, and soil bearing checks, but I am wondering if that is too conservative. No one was able to...
  8. Cpw628

    X-Braces with Central Node Moved Upward -

    Thank you! This made the most sense. Agreed, the article states this as well. I recommend giving it a read. They mention that it is not the design to pick if you are controlled by buckling, but mainly controlled by deflection. Another interesting thing about the article is the middle node is...
  9. Cpw628

    X-Braces with Central Node Moved Upward -

    I came across the article "Evolution of the Braced Tube" by Structure Magazine that shows the 800 Fulton Market in Chicago as having an X brace with the center of the X shifted up. The article states that when the members are deflection controlled this is more efficient, but doesn't get into...
  10. Cpw628

    Concrete anchor supplemental reinforcing

    My understanding of the topic is that yes you can (kinda), but the current research/understanding is still somewhat limited. The best reference I have is going to be ACI 318-19, Section 17.5.2.1, however this is fairly strict and requires for an all or nothing approach. They also talk about it...

Part and Inventory Search