Search results for query: *

Can you make sure your analysis doesn't have YZ plane restrained in the "active degrees of freedom"?

Cliff - the public comment ACI 318-25 had the hook development lengths returning to ACI 318-14 or close to it. In addition, like Celt83 mentioned, a lot of the crazy seismic amplification is getting scaled back. It will still be worse than before, but much better than 318-19. Hopefully they'll...

How do your firms show development length and lap splice schedules on construction drawings? Do you have the most conservative value calculated prior to the modifiers applied and spell out how the modifiers apply? For example, a #5 bar in 5000 psi concrete has a hook development length of 15"...

You would consider it as a column and design as such. Yes, one tie contributes to two legs. Similar to a circular column. You would use effective depth as 0.8 times diameter. You can review ACI 336.3R or ACI 543R-12.

It looks like he has multiple restricted endorsements. Don't know what the basis for the board granting those are. https://www.myfloridalicense.com/LicenseDetail.asp?SID=&id=593501B6C755C3C26BCCC7D0CC079ADD

What was an electrical engineer doing review of windows?

You calculate your top and bottom reinforcement, then calculate your additional longitudinal rebar for torsion. For example, you needed 8 in2 for torsion, you would divide it equally on 4 sides (or proportion based on beam depth width ratios). If you had 4#9 top and bottom already, one way to do...

I recently looked into this and they're using AC58.

Haven't read all of this, but be careful using the increase for sqrt (A1/A2) as you don't have confinement in both directions.

@EngrRC - for buildings where gravity loading isn't symmetric, it is not unusual to end up with lateral movements resulting from it. When such types of buildings exist, you should consider running construction sequence analysis. ETABS (and other programs) have the ability to analyze the building...

In order to calculate the induced moments and shears due to design displacement, you can create a load combination that amplifies the moment by "Cd" factor. The inelastic (design) displacement is the seismic displacement amplified by Cd factor. I don't believe you need two separate models...

If your D2L anchor is developed to resist the tension in the member, then I don't see an issue. This would be no different than rebar being developed in a tension member (net uplift) anchored to a footing. I agree with TLHS that it is best to be conservative with the development length and use a...

I have in the past taken "fanning out" to middle of slab thickness. So I would go 200 x (200 + slab thickness) on each column.

If it was net bearing pressure, the answer would be f. Only consider the column reaction.

I would first ask the geotechnical engineer to clarify net vs gross. When it comes to net bearing pressures, typical practice is to ignore the weight of the soil and footing and only consider the applied loads to it.

Treat each of these columns independently for the axial loads and moments they carry. It looks like you are transferring a column on to a slab.

You don't need to have six different load cases. You have the ability to override diaphragm eccentricities for each level. The value of eccentricity is input as a value in feet, which is based on the actual eccentricity.

There's mention of backstay effect in NERHP Tech Briefs on Diaphragms, and also in the LATBSDC document. It is a real phenomenon that needs to be considered.

A rigid diaphragm means zero in-plane displacement, as it is infinitely rigid. So if the two ends of a beam are rigidly connected (constrained), there will be no movement relative to each end and hence, no axial force.

It would be useful for you to share some more information, perhaps a wall elevation showing the outrigger etc. In my experience, deep outriggers modeled as shell elements are more appropriate. Frame elements are good when span/depth ratio exceeds 3-4. For anything deeper, I would recommend shell...