Never done it but an interesting concept. Do you mean just treat them as tension only cross bracing and neglect concrete????
I think the age old stiffness rule will mess your load path assumption and no force will get into the bars....
it is ignored because AISC did enough testing to show that the eccentricity is resolved within the connected elements. Hell if they let you ignore it for a standard bolted connection (to the bolt lines), why would a 1/4" be of any significance to worry about.....
Never used it but they do have a building official letter on the website stating the testing for lateral loads is available upon request. I do agree that there's no means for lateral forces to transfer safely down into the shear walls/braced panels etc... This doesn't mean it wouldn't work but...
If he has the screw model # used then he can calculate the shear and tensile forces on the screw shank (diameter excl threads) per AISC for the given steel material. The tensile strength of threads pulling out would be unknown though....
Not a Geotech but my vote is for A - except why not thicken up the other side of the wedge for more direct passive pressure area instead of relaying on the very sloped area??
it has to be resisted somehow. Either by the footing mass counteracting the OT moment or by utilizing the passive pressure (risky as it requires a decent movement for the pier/footing passive pressure to be utilized) or by other means (like suggested above) using slab reinforcing.
The latter is...
4" slab is a very common thing where I practice for commercial buildings. Industrial ones will usually be thicker (6" min) but only because it's a warehouse doesn't mean it needs a thicker slab. It all depends on the use and particularly on the concentrated loads the slab will be subject to...
WHat I do is to draw an undermined area around the perimeter of the existing edge that is to be filled with concrete which creates a sort of saddle. Never specified dowels for just 4" slab unless there's a potential for forklift/heavy wheel loads in which case the slab should have been thicker...
Assuming the wall is non bearing (from the picture) I would just leave the crack alone. My guess is the wall was built without the joint and after the crack appeared a solution was suggested to saw cut it to provide a joint. If it's a shrinkage induced crack then there's no need to mess with...
If the pad is on grade then although it will span both directions you can always design it as one way and be on the conservative side. IF it's elevated on beams then for sure one way slab must be used. Either way you can model it as one way and get a safe design.
I would use 35 deg (to horizontal) angle from each base plate corner like you drew. IF the slab is reinforced then you could see if it would span further thus allowing for larger width/length to be considered effective. Same could be said for unreinforced slab. You could also check how far it...
Wouldn’t you also treat them as two separate structures for the purposes of determining the period(s)? You design the top one as stand alone building and then transfer the seismic base shear to the lower one as additional seismic effect on the “stand alone one story structure”.
Completely agree with the above. Plan reviewer is misunderstanding the code provision. However, if he’s the authority having jurisdiction then he just essentially amended the code for you. The model codes give very broad powers to local AHJ. If they say something is required you don’t have...
AISC only allows it in one of the two connected parts so you will typically have slots on the tab but STD round holes in the beam web. Even if the bolt landed in the worst place (up against the edge of the slot) the movement like KootK said is a small fraction compared to the frame and its...
