Recent content by CDLD

I believe there is a figure in the commentary explaining this. There is an existing thread too.

Are the rods doubly symmetric, ie., 4 total? The WT will lower the neutral axis, which means compression over a longer portion of the web (more likely to have issues with local web buckling). The S6 bridge code, has guidance on the web section class. Refer to...

Thanks for that. I am considering adding bracing to resist the longitudinal load. I cannot run with your detail since the strut is not at the same elevation as the crane beam, however I can brace the brackets back to the strut which will take care of the torsion.

The crane is 15T and I assume the bridge/trolley weight is about 15T. Longitudinal load is 10% of wheel load, which is approximately (30k lifted load + 30k/2 bridge weight)*0.1 = 4.5kips Thanks for this. Crane is rarely used and has been in service for 40 years. What do the tie backs have to...

I assume they are not slip critical.

What exactly is your question? Is it in regards to the effective length of the compressive member in the X-bracing? You can still maintain concentrically braced with double angles.

The existing details do not call for those braces. Additionally, the strut/girt is not tied into a vertically braced bay. For tractive loads the columns will twist and bend about the weak-axis. Basically, my question is whether all columns will share the twist and weak-axis bending. For...

These details are from an existing crane. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "a pair of diagonal angles to the nearest column".

Hi, I'm working on an existing industrial building, and adding loads to existing crane columns. How does everyone stand on equally distributing the tractive forces (parallel to rail) to all columns (7 bays). You can see below that the bracket to crane girder connection is slotted. I assume...

Correct, no issue there.

I was able to resolve it by separating each landing into separate "floor groups" and applying a floor load to each of the groups. I used the floor load command rather than the area load command. I'm not sure what you mean by "are all joints connected".

Yeah exactly, I've separated each elevation into separate groups and it works as expected. There was no warning provided. The danger is that the UI displays the loading as if it is properly distributed to all landings.

I've encountered quite a dangerous error using "floor loads" in STAAD pro Connect and would like to see if anyone has had a similar issue. Below is a snapshot of a ~105 ft stair tower where I've grouped all the landings as a floor group. I applied a floor live load to this group of 4.79 kPa...

Where are you seeing this clause of concrete breakout doesn’t apply to embedments deeper than 20d? Based on below snapshot, full bar development does not preclude breakout on cast-in reinforcement.

I think the way you broke up the load path makes sense and should be conservative. If you need more capacity, I would think you can use a wider beam A. Perhaps flare out at 45 from the center of column. There is no biaxial bending at point A - you have normal stresses in orthogonal...