What about adding some filler steel beams in blue to cut the wood span down to something more achievable. You would have a steel filler beam near the full glass wall to keep the floor load off of that main W21 beam as much as possible so you can keep the depth of it down.
Thanks. I understand your thought better. I don't think it is practical to get that moment to develop in the floor joists.
If you can somehow transfer those moments from the outrigger into the floor joists, you could have uplift at the W10 reaction, so a joist hanger with uplift capacity...
AndBre44,
If you are still considering your idea, could you sketch up your section view with the steel outriggers, steel beams and the uplift hangers on the joists? I'm having a hard time picturing what you are describing and figuring out what the FBD would look like.
KootK's solution in his sketch seems like the best way to go to keep your structure depth down. It will allow the floor joists to not be above the steel framing and it utilizes two beams to lower the require steel beam depth. There is lots of added cost as he said with the extra steel and...
Is there a way to reduce the span of the W21 beam to be less than 32 ft? If not, you could use a shallower and heavier section with a similar moment of inertia.
Does the architect realize that the floor joists will have to be on top of the W21 beam (or whatever you reduce it to)? They can't...
I would think that you do not need to consider the moment. Similar to a spread footing loaded by a pinned column, there would be moment in the footing. We do not consider moment when doing the punching shear check in this case. For a two way slab, we would only consider moment with punching...
FreshGenZSE,
Yes, that is the idea. When designing standard pile caps or a spread footing, that is exactly what we are doing. Since concrete sections are so thick, they are able to distribute the load well, much better than a steel plate would. This is how it is done per the codes for...
To be sure that I am understanding the foundation, the octagonal pad is supported by piles, I'm guessing at least 4 piles around the perimeter?
How much deeper would the middle section of the footing need to be to avoid the need for stirrups?
I would guess that they may be sized so that...
I agree with human909's sentiment. I think I may need to learn to read as well. Where do you say that this is not a real project?
I believe the small amounts of positive moments you are seeing for the left beam are the moments at the face of the column. If ETABS showed the moment diagram...
If you have a long shear wall with the moment in it, it would make sense to me to present it as a force couple as you have shown since the moment is applied over a long distance. If it were from a column, I think a point moment would make the most sense. Just my two cents.
There shouldn't be...
I think we all may have worked with some engineers where we wonder how the bridges or buildings they designed are still standing. I think the answer is partially in the safety factors and partially because the design loads have not occurred yet (design wind speeds or design snow loads etc..)...
Based on the load tables, swapping to X bolts will only add 5 kips or so, since the angle thickness starts to govern.
I agree with you that adding one bolt, especially near its fully loaded state won't necessarily fix the problem. However, 80% of the load on this connection is a live load, so...
Hello all,
I have an existing girder that is getting an increased load. After analyzing the existing shear connection, I have found it to be 60k short (about 13% too low). I am wondering if there are any implications to adding another shear tab or double angle connection below the existing...
I don't think a young test-taking phenom can pass the SE exam as it is so broad and really gets into the weeds on the codes, you can't pass it just by being a good test taker. And if some young engineer did pass the SE exam, they would not be an engineer in name only since passing the SE exam...
You are looking at alternative load combinations, not the standard ones.
Either way, I believe the 2/3rd is generally in line with the logic of a 1.5 SF for overturning and such.
I agree with Aesur, breakout would still need to be checked since the hairpins/grade beam is 24" below the top of pier.
Adding those hairpins may help with the footings if sliding or overturning is causing them to size up a lot, but it wouldn't help with the pier size.
R403.1.6 stipulates the requirement for foundation anchors in the IRC, 1/2" diameter with 7" embedment. Are these anchors allowed to be post installed? I know the code also mentions other approved anchors but I can't seem to find many companies who claim to have them.
I am not trying to get...
