Chips flaking off the top rail is unavoidable. For cleanroom applications solutions are to provide upturned channels under the rails to capture flakes and magnets near the rail head.
ASCE rail is a better choice if future adjustment and repair are concerns.
I'm coming in late to the discussion but I would like to revisit the definition of profession:
A profession is work where compensation is dominated by knowledge rather than effort AND the the professional bears continuing responsibility to his client after the work has been completed...
From what I understand, PCA passed the baton to CRSI. They have a design guide for 318-19
https://members.crsi.org/ItemDetail?iProductCode=DG0014-01-PUB-I&Category=DESIGN&WebsiteKey=02699be0-de91-4daf-885b-af2284ae09c0
There are many ways to detail the ledger connection for a more rigid connection to the concrete that would provide adequate out-of-plane resistance. The Simpson connectors seem marginal for that purpose. I would lean towards a detail that uses an embedded anchor bolt and purlin anchor.
There is a company here in CA that recruits part-time engineers. I wouldn't expect it to be very difficult to find other similar opportunities as long as you are capable of completing projects without guidance and supervision.
I recently bought a business. We do consulting and fabrication. My recommendation is if you like the work you are doing, buy the business but hire an accountant to make sure the deal is equitable. It is a long process between signing a letter of intent and closing on the business. However...
Correct. But the LC your are using is oversimplified. You need to check 2.4.5 for the full load combination for seismic effects. You are only allowed to use 0.6 DL to counteract seismic and you have to subtract vertical effects from that. So in significant seismic zones, you only really get...
'E' as derived using Ch. 11, 12, 13, 15is calibrated to LRFD load combinations which is why those combinations do not have a factor in front of the 'E'.
It's a fairly common detail. The failure between the grout and concrete is covered by the manufacturers data sheet that claims the bond will be at least as strong as the shear strength of the concrete.
True, but fundamentally you still comparing stress by means of safety factors. The only real difference is that the safety factors used for LRFD are based on a different statistical model. The AISC Design Guide for torsion for example, shows you how to compare demand stress to capacity stress...
The type of CJP is determined by considerations of economy, access and edge geometry. For some connections, any type will work but some would obviously be more economical than others. Some fabricators have processes setup that would make them prefer one type over another. I have read...
Unless you have a wildly complex structure, FEM is not going to save much time on timber design. The resource intensive portion of a timber design is going to be the design of the connections. Very few FEM programs touch this portion of the design.
This is generally what I have done.
https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=ee310ba1-3e78-468c-99cd-7dbf5ce70fef&file=[Untitled]_2022111707582117.pdfhttps://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=ee310ba1-3e78-468c-99cd-7dbf5ce70fef&file=[Untitled]_2022111707582117.pdf
This was always a concern in the back of my mind when designing large irregular wood diaphragms for seismic loads. Our typical practice was to model it as a rigid diaphragm. However there was typically no consideration given as to how the forces would get from one side of the L to the other.
