Search results for query: *

Here is the plan for the base steel (per structural): And here's a photo of the corner (w/removed steel plate): One though that was brought up was installing 2 additional W27s at each end & shifting the 2 W14s inward, similar to below: This seems costly (and I'm somewhat doubtful it would...

Update: after visiting the site the issue isn't entirely clear, but there are some more variables to consider. 1) There are springs between the unit support steel & the steel anchored to the concrete footings; springs are only about 5"wide, and the bf of the unit support steel is 10"w 2) The...

Here's a plan view (red lines indicate outline & bolt pattern of equipment): (Overall dim's are approximately 33'x21') Planning on visiting the site later today to get more info. Thank you all for your help, I really appreciate it!

KootK: Yes - equipment could be removed. SWComposites: Could you please point me in the right direction for the most straight-forward approach of sizing & spacing transverse stiffeners? (Also, would stiffeners on the left side provide much benefit in this scenario?)

Have an issue with a large piece of equipment sitting off the web of the main support beam - see sketch below: Field crew claims the web is bending inward along with the top flange, and the member isn't even fully loaded yet. What, in your opinion, would be the most economical approach to...

Maybe I'm making this more difficult than it needs to be...(?) Would reinforcing each of the joists the RTU is supported by be a more straight-forward approach?

Looking for some input on an existing roof structure. Field-gathered info indicates the existing structure was designed for a 30 psf roof load. When the added weight of a 3.1k RTU is introduced beam deflection exceeds L/240, so I'd like to reinforce per the following schematic: Trying to keep...

Hello all, I have a somewhat unique issue that I've been tasked with and would appreciate feedback from an experienced group. There is an existing roof structure (which all preliminary calc's indicate was designed to hold roof construction, live load, & some snow) which is getting a new 2,600...

Guess that actually answers my last question. Thank you so much for your help! It's greatly appreciated!

Sorry, didn't adjust that auto-filled value - see below:

With no "gap" between the #14 fastener & the wood could yield modes Im, Is, or IV be assumed?

AWC's connection calculator gives the following: IIIs is obviously the weakest link @ 208 lbs, but I'm not entirely sure that's the yield mode in this scenario... I understand that any yield mode could occur & need to design for that but I'm wondering if one of the other scenarios could be...

Hmm...I think the only way to get that to work is by assuming a type Im connection yield mode, but this should be considered as a type Is - would you agree?

Is there a way to show with calc's that the fastener will still hold everything together but deform?

I agree that's the simple solution, but not that simple after everything has already been roofed in... (The concern had been brought up months after everything was installed.)

Hello all - hoping to get some input on an issue that arose on a job. A contractor (who went a bit off script) had provided a typical leveling frame for rooftop units which were anchored to resist shear & uplift wind forces - see following sketches: The fastening/anchoring method appears to...