You'd want stiffeners matching the column flange full depth in the W27, and a fly brace on one side of the W27 where it bears on the column to a perpendicular member, at a minimum. Then there is the question of if the flange is thick enough for the bending. Certainly can be done safely though...
I've never treated it like that, since that clause is giving forces for the SFRS, but I can understand how it's read like that. It doesn't seem to make much difference anyway, since it tells you to design for the building components you would have to design for in 4.1.8.18, and doesn't mention...
For the elements, you go to 4.1.8.18.2 and determine if they need to be attached for seismic forces, independent of the building analysis check. The weights contribute to the seismic mass either way though, so it shouldn't affect foundations. I don't think 4.1.8.1 is meant to let you get out of...
You are anchoring misc components from the PEMB? I'm used to these just being basic warehouses. If you go to 4.1.8.16, you're going to need the RdRo=1 forces anyway for the foundation, so some of this is moot, but if you are permitted to use the simplified method, then conventional construction...
You don't even need a gap, without any jacking the post will already only see live loads. Another option instead of a slab is a big steel base plate to spread load out over the SoG
Spend some time here, do some light reading (the best text recommendations have also come from here). Studying for the SE has also been good to me, opened my eyes to some stuff I don't deal with (unfortunately also exposed me to bridges).
What you have looks to be a conservative approach for both the beam widths and unity checks. You could go with a yield line approach and get a lot more capacity and still have it as a hand calc
Cantilevered columns are not ok for post disaster. You can see if the AHJ will accept SCCS through AISC 341 but there is no system in S16 for these to be used with R=2
Geotechs may recommend bond break or a backfill material that won't adhere to the foundation for shallow foundations. Given that the concrete isn't cast against the earth I don't see there being as much friction anyway.
How would a crane producer be able to determine this? Are they installing load cells at their customers installations?
AIST is for mill cranes. The 10% of total load will give some allowance for lateral forces from misalignment of the rail. The correct code would depend on where you are...
Had a contractor try and say O/C was clear spacing when he messed up the rebar placement... without the O/C there I guess it would have been a bit more of a pain.
If you brace the section against rotation you could connect to the web. This is likely a more costly option than a fly brace down to the bottom flange though
The slab on grade in those cases in designed as plain concrete (see PCI method for example). If the slab on grade is designed as reinforced, then you provide reinforcement on both faces. If designed as plain concrete, the T+S is more optional that anything (have seen some plain concrete slabs...
If the steel truly has begun yielding, the crack on any normally sized beam is going to be a lot bigger than that. Did you test a beam to failure in undergrad?
