Search results for query: *

I'd check it as is. You have a nice compression block - no deducts for the metal deck flutes. Bump your concrete up to 6000 psi for this piece and see where it puts you.

Many, many slabs-on-grade (including and especially pavements) are designed and cast completely unreinforced. The load goes through the slab into the base material and imparts minimal flexure to the slab; therefore, no reinforcement is needed.

You are correct. Which SDC are you in? The Commentary gives you a little wiggle room if you are in SDC C.

Can you use the exception i in Table 15.4-1? I think it is intended for situations like yours (ASCE 7-16). You might be able to bump your R to 3.5.

If it's a moment frame, isn't your R value greater than 1?

No, I don't think it's appropriate to use the Chapter 13 component forces instead of the Chapter 15 non-building forces for design of the frame. Logic would say that the anchorage forces from Chapter 13 would usually be higher than the frame-as-a-whole forces from Chapter 15. Do you have...

I'm not sure how often they were printed, but I have the CRSI 1975 version here at my desk if you need a screenshot or two.

I'm guessing that figuring out the intersection of the cone frustrum for breakout is a little too complicated when one or more of the sides is curved.

If the building were designed without sprinklers 100 years ago, but the same building would require them now, I seriously doubt that an AHJ or Fire Marshall would let you omit sprinklers if you were to add a 4th floor. They'd make you sprinkler the whole building.

Looking at the beam size (W27x178) and all those 7/8" bolts, it seems like someone is hoping that stiffener somehow helps in shear. The column can't carry much moment, inadvertent or not. This dovetails with our previous discussions about whether or not the column need be designed for the load...

At first glance, it looks too much like a teeter-totter. If you put some eccentric snow and wind as KootK says, where do the forces go?

The one-sided stitch welds from the column webs to the column flanges give me pause.

A nut under the head of the bolt? So your connection would be stud head/nut/plies/nut/nut?

We used to ask that the bottom of columns be "milled" to ensure full bearing. I believe that AISC many moons ago said that cutting the column "square" is adequate for bearing and small deformations from imperfections do not affect performance. You case may be similar.

Is your masonry solid grouted? If not, expansion bolts will probably not work. You need to look to the manufacturer's literature.

My mentor used to call it "reliable". Offset your uplift with reliable dead load.

Just adding a plate to the bottom does not increase the beam's capacity all that much. You might want to check your calcs.

Gas station canopies are the first things to fail under high winds. It was probably marginal at best as it was originally designed!

You have received some great advice in this thread. Eng-tips is a great resource. Now my two cents. First - be brutally honest with yourself. Are you really doing twice as much as the person next to you? Or are you taking 50 hours to do what should be done in 40? I don't get paid overtime and...

Have a look at the Vulcraft website. They have tools for diaphragm design. You can try various arrangements and compare to get equivalent capacities out of different fasteners.