For the axial load effect on the wind front it could be generated by wind on roof or done in the way you noted I approach it this way as it's common for some software applications to only report P,V,M at the base of a wall which you can decompose into a line load on the wall via:
For a straight...
for a loose lintel I believe you'd fall into the category of being "without continuous lateral-torsional restraint" which would kick you to principal axis design in AISC.
AISC F10:
Bridging by itself no, bridging with either end jamb studs or end diagonal/K bracing designed to transfer the force from the bridging into the diaphragm yes.
Be mindful of how much wall you'll lose for the doors. In my experience they will also want the base level left completely open for the cab install and the top floor may have a larger opening requirement to accommodate the control box.
Specifically for Headers Reference AISI S240 which incorporated the older ASIS S212. If I recall correctly the design provisions in S240 are based on testing and require the specific assemblies from chapter C of that standard, e.g. the box header requires the track lips wrapping onto the C/S...
For the fastener design refer to AISI S100-16-2020 Chapter I and the associated Commentary Chapter
https://www.buildusingsteel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AISI-S100-16-2020-wS3-22.pdf
If it's intended to be a non-loadbearing partition or exterior wall it should have vertical slip provided at the top either by a deflection track or hardware with built in vertical slip.
My understanding these days is the decision to not permit masonry cement is linked to how you designed the element.
Refer to TMS 402-16 Table 8.2.4.2, the allowable flexural tension of Masonry Cement mortar is significantly lower than Portland Cement/Mortar Cement. If you didn't consider the...
@lexpatrie
you can get ATC 7 here they print it on demand I got my copy in a couple days: https://store.atcouncil.org/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=11
The Diekmann article can be found in this book...
It's sounds like you're saying:
" I am loading my mat foundation with column reactions assuming pinned bases"
"I am designing my mat foundation with fixed near-pinned top columns"
If this is accurate then your boundary conditions between models are at odds with each other.
If the columns are...
I don't believe this is correct. At the mat foundation the unbalanced moment would just be the column fixed base moment from the building model. For the mat foundation the bearing pressure is in response to the loading so for equilibrium the pressure distribution should result in the unbalanced...
For this configuration it may work out to no net uplift was meaning more in a general sense in wood need to be careful when you add continuity and look out for it generating uplift.
Don’t want to start an argument by saying this but the thing that makes wood a deceptively difficult material is...
Can you please revise having us watch every forums as the default configuration to having us watch no forums by default. Received an excessive amount of emails after logging in over a 24 hour period.
The central wall you likely don’t need it in this case but if you use it be careful of unintended uplift reactions under gravity loads due to the continuity, unbalanced snow, and/or load patterning. These unintended gravity uplift reactions will in my experience usually exceed the net wind...
Similar to cold-formed construction yes mid-height blocking could be considered a brace point for axial compression and/or flexure LTB. To serve that purpose there needs to be a load path for the bracing force into the diaphragm and out to to the lateral system either by diagonals or specific...
