Search results for query: *

Is the lack of a response an editorial comment? [ponder]

There's a prescribed design method in Section 2121.1. It's not bad for residences, but a little too prescribed for my taste. But you're allowed to engineer it yourself per 2122. I usually use a mixture of the tie beams and columns method plus a touch of JedClampett from 2122 goodness added in.

Or get a copy of Timoshenko, where Roark's grad students boosted his work from.

We have a qualification in our Native Soil Specification requiring, "Sum of plasticity index when tested in accordance with ASTM D4318 and the percent of material by weight passing a Number 200 sieve shall not exceed 23 when tested in accordance with ASTM C136." It's been in there forever. We...

I'm surprised that anyone uses Kleinlogel. I've still got a Xerox copy, probably from 1976. 43.97 at Amazon. Hmmm? Man I'm tempted. It cost me $16 for an Old Fashioned!

Similar to mtu1972, in 1975 the job market was kaka. I had a wall of rejection letters (that's what we did in those days) and a good assistantship (dorm advisor), so I just kept going to school. In a year I had a masters. It got me a dollar more an hour (remember this was 1976) and a lot more...

My opinion is that if the thin cladding provided one iota of diaphragm capacity, the PEMB designers would be using that. Yet they don't. They provide a separate bracing system, such as rods or angles.

If understand correctly, I like JedClampett's idea of adding new web material. Jed, is this what you meant: Yes. You even put a little more than I envisioned.

Grind the weld smooth and weld a plate of same web thickness all around, top and bottom flange and back to the web.

dik is correct. And they should recommend the mitigation and hopefully design it. Not to disrespect our Geotechnical brethren, but they seem to be very good at dropping a liquefaction bomb and disappearing. Same with a lot of foundation improvements. I spend too much time calling Geotechnical...

Maybe you've found my old Robertson Catalogue. For the 7.5-inch deck, it tops out at 31 ft. But that's for the thinner gages. https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=25b603e9-5fe2-4152-844e-176b9bb30f7d&file=Robertson_Catalogue.pdf

It might be a grid with W4 at 2 inches and W9 at 16 inches, especially if the wires spaced at 2 inches are in the direction of the span. I think that there was a lot more flexibility in ordering custom sizes a long time ago. I've attached the "Manual of Standard Practice for the Structural...

Sure. We're going to give you permission to violate code, based on: Our need to be liked? The fact that we're kind of anonymous? If a 40 ft. light pole falls, what's the difference?

No, we never exceed 6 inch spacing, so it would probably be #9's at 6" If there's a case where I need to thicken the wall, I just add the shear reinforcing. For whatever reason, adding reinforcing is not noticed, but thickening a wall is a capital offense.

In our business (water and wastewater treatment), we design wall thickness based on shear, then reinforce based on bending. So every design we've done in the last 90 years (the time we've been in business) is now inadequate. Never mind the fact that we've never had a shear failure and our...

Unpeeling the onion: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/02/19/target-collapsed-hillside-west-virginia/72664634007/

I'm pretty sure that State Boards have limits that are quite small, like $500 or $1000. The example given above was in Canada, and they might treat it differently. The real punishment is suspending your license and putting a stink on your reputation. Beyond that, if you're negligent, you can be...

See https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/target-building-partially-collapses-due-to-slipping-hillside/vi-BB1imxJ1?ocid=socialshare&pc=U531&cvid=743b74e8e38e4578af09bd090a21ceec&ei=46 Looks like another segmental retaining wall issue.

We always design for the two cases of: Water on one side, no soil on the other and Soil on one side and no water on the other side. They might excavate the soil or bulkhead off the water.

Us old-timers ignore ACI 318 for tank pressures. The old ACI 350-89 used 1.7 on water pressures and a 1.3 "Sanitary Factor" for bending on top of that. That's 2.21. Is it overdesigned? Possibly. But water pressure is relentless. It's not like an office building where the LL is a high guess, and...