Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Search results for query: *

  1. Celt83

    Beam Reinforcement Calculation

    I discovered an error in my previous model were the loading was applied as 1 kip/in instead of 1 kip/ft, checked with a quick hand calc on the deflection and noticed my error. It's an elastic analysis so the values in my previous images should be off by a factor of 12. I'm personally still...
  2. Celt83

    Beam Reinforcement Calculation

    EDIT: I made an error in the model below and the load was actually applied as 1 kip/in not 1 kip/ft Strain at the interface is also equal in the case of a bottom or top mounted cover plate. Assume the practical case where the beam is top loaded there absolutely must be some force transfer...
  3. Celt83

    Beam Reinforcement Calculation

    I don’t believe shear flow is 0 at the C/A interface it’s my understanding that you can look at the vertical shear plane at C/A and use the Q as the first moment of area for the C area about the composite centroid sim to the below pulled from Mechanics of Materials 7th edition by Beer:
  4. Celt83

    Beam Reinforcement Calculation

    Giving it more thought VQ/I at the top and bottom of the reinforcement plates is 0, still would be curious to see the model with intermittent fasteners at the top and bottom of the plates rather than at the centroid.
  5. Celt83

    Beam Reinforcement Calculation

    Rather than have the fastener at the centroid is there any change to the answer if you place the connection point at the top and bottom of the plates? My thought on this being you’ve placed the attachment point at the location of 0 curvature vs connecting at the top and bottom of the side plates...
  6. Celt83

    Bearing pressure for rectangular footing double eccentricity

    for general biaxial bending it’s a bit tricky you could generate formulas for a fixed shape foundation but the effort may not worth it. See this thread: https://www.eng-tips.com/threads/combined-footing-outside-of-middle-third.476601/
  7. Celt83

    Ultimate vs. Allowable Passive Pressure - which to use with a safety factor

    Retaining wall stability is governed by 1807.2.3 (IBC 2018) which is a little more onerous than just the ASD load combinations and notes the use of nominal loads.
  8. Celt83

    Cantilevered Beam on Wall

    I wish…floating license for Autodesk Robot these threads give me some nice test cases to run. the difference boils down to the effective moment arm for the cantilever moment between the two supports.
  9. Celt83

    Cantilevered Beam on Wall

    Best case the if you provide a single tie down at the far end of the cont. wall support it will tend to act like a propped cantilever for determination of the forces on the wall studs. As @Greenalleycat noted if they get overzealous and start fastening it for uplift resistance at ever stud the...
  10. Celt83

    Foundation Wall for Building on Fill

    the tension in the slab is only part of the load path need to terminate it somewhere if relying on slab/ground friction you need to make sure you have enough building length and also discount a portion of weight within the active soil wedge.
  11. Celt83

    Foundation Wall for Building on Fill

    What do you see as the load path for your slab on grade to provide lateral restraint to the top of the wall? In my experience that generally won't end up working out so tend to design these conditions as true retaining walls.
  12. Celt83

    IEBC Allowable 5% Gravity Increase on Total Load or Load Type?

    My interpretation is they likely removed the stress language as most of the design methodologies now are based on LRFD so I believe the intent is a 5% increase in demand in whatever form that takes shear, moment, axial, torsion. To me this also doesn't mean directly allowing a demand/capacity...
  13. Celt83

    Staggered Stud Wall LTB

    For Le my interpretation has been: Axial Le = Ke L from section 3.7.1.2 and for a wall stud have taken Ke as 1.0, then using the A.11.3 to justify one side sheathed as bracing the narrow face so only need Le/d Bending When the compression is not braced and not taking advantage of 4.4.1 Le for...
  14. Celt83

    Staggered Stud Wall LTB

    Interesting I've never personally used section 4.4.1 to take CL as 1.0 but looks like a wall stud would qualify as long as you meet 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.1.3.
  15. Celt83

    Staggered Stud Wall LTB

    This and @EngDM post address axial compression buckling, Cp, for the wind suction case placing the wall interior stud face in compression neither option would be considered bracing for the computation of the CL factor.
  16. Celt83

    Staggered Stud Wall LTB

    Sheathing on one face is sufficient for axial bracing For LTB from the wind pressure bending you'd need sheathing on the compression face of the stud or alternately blocking developed into the diaphragm.
  17. Celt83

    Bar Around Corner of Cantilever Concrete Retaining Wall

    Research Curved Bar Nodes: https://www.concrete.org/publications/internationalconcreteabstractsportal.aspx?m=details&id=19949 For these corners you are really sending the tension around the corner vs developing the bar tension into the corner.
  18. Celt83

    ASCE 7-16 15.4.4 - Approximating Seismic Period

    Bondy has a good example with the Rayleigh Method in his Seismic Lecture series around the 9 minute mark in lecture 6:
  19. Celt83

    Roof Screen MWFRS

    For rooftop equipment you also use the mean roof height to determine the pressure vs parapet you use the top of parapet. Rooftop equipment also can be reduced from 1.9 to 1 based on comparison to 0.1Bh which I imagine a screen wall gets down to 1.5 or below fairly quickly.
  20. Celt83

    Help with ACI 351.3 table 4.1

    In 351.3R-18 their provided example uses linear interpolation for the v=0.45 values

Part and Inventory Search

Back
Top