Search results for query: *

If you think that's bad, wait until you start considering continuous beams (a very common occurrence in residential/Part 9 construction) compared to the Part 4 calculations.

Funny enough Bones, I tried the same thing last week. I didn't get a chance to delve too deeply into the 'why' with the lack of correlation, but what I found in the example I looked at was the model exhibited the general behaviour and mimicked the distribution of forces, however the magnitudes...

Definitely need to include the notional loads. The non-linear analysis (along with stiffness reduction) is what allows you to use K = 1 for the design of members, but you still need to account for destabilizing loads. With SAP2000, there should be an option to automatically generate the...

Conceptually, a diaphragm is just a deep beam. So assuming you have a lateral load in the N-S direction, then the diaphragm is just a beam with two simple supports with a slight overhand beyond each support. You'll end up with load reversal for your chord axial forces since you'll have both...

I mean, that's not necessarily a bad thing...

Check the commentary for guidance perhaps? I'm not familiar with the IRC, but the Canadian equivalent (Part 9 of the building code), you only need to consider the simplified snow load applied as a balanced snow load on the entire roof. There is a provision that states that in situations where...

This would fall under the category of an amusement structure under ASCE 7. So for seismic R = 2.5, Omega = 2.5, Cd = 2.5. I think as dik pointed out, 100 psf for your live load, and then use the appropriate fraction of that to add to your effective seismic weight as per the code. The problem...

I don't know if #1 is applicable. In my Kassimali structural analysis book, the example they provide has a height to length ratio of 0.5. The only stipulation to the method is that it should be limited to "relatively low building frames", although not clarifying what's the threshold. For #2, I...

Ok, as an update, I was able to find a source that addresses my original question now that I was able to get back to the office. I'll post it here for everyone's awareness. From Brzev, S., & Pao, J. (3rd Edition): "A non-prismatic approach is used in conjunction with the moment distribution...

That makes sense, and I would be curious to know how common/prevalent it is to follow the procedure outlined to the letter, or whether the rigid offset simplification is considered good enough. It's still unclear to me what the second methodology is about.

I've been working through the design of a two-way slab based on the elastic frame method in the CSA A23.3 standard, and there is one part of the code that is unclear to me and I don't have the commentary or reference in terms of the rationale behind these provisions. Based on my understanding...

One thing for sure to consider would be the effect of torsion. You're going to get a tension-compression couple and would likely check that force against the requirements for Chapter K (off the top of my head) for the side wall of the column yielding and punching failure. Also would also include...

Yeah, that's unfortunate. It's so bizarre because most other design codes provide environmental parameters as contours, based on zones as opposed to very specific locations. The only other suggestion would be to look at some of the old editions of the NBCC (like 50s and 60s). I believe those...

Ah, sorry, I just saw you were looking 'S' values without looking too closely at the subscript and assumed you were looking for seismic values. For non-seismic parameters, I don't think there is a tool available similar to the seismic hazard tool, or something like the ASCE 7's hazard tool...

Wouldn't that information just be pulled from the NBCC seismic hazard map online? https://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard-alea/zoning-zonage/NBCC2020maps-en.php

lexpatrie, My understanding is that the change in the -22 edition wasn't just specifying the snow loads as ultimate loads rather than service loads. Some of the specified ground snow load values were increased such that the ultimate load could be up to 15% higher than if you performed the...

Is ACI 318-19 the referenced standard in IBC 2024? If so, that's a bit of an oversight by the code committee. Personally, I would focus on the intent of the code in terms of what the desired level of structural reliability. From my understanding, ASCE 7-22 transitioned snow loads to follow the...

I would think they need CCMC type approval or you would need to evaluate the technical literature they have and either show or certify compliance with the applicable building code requirement in that AHJ. From the CMCC's website: "Alternative solution submissions typically require technical...

Are you sure those walls don't have a unique condition like laterally unsupported at the top, or large openings that would make the foundation wall considered to be laterally unsupported?

Looking at it again, sign structures should be Part 4. 1.3.1.1.(1) The following structures are designated for the purposes of clause (d) of the definition of building in subsection 1(1) of the Act: 1.3.1.1.(1)(e) signs regulated by Section 3.15 of Division B that are not structurally...