Simply that an increase below the 5% threshold for all (3) load cases can result in a greater stress increase than 5% or more for a single load case.
I agree and have only expressed the same interpretation throughout this thread - no argument from me.
Even most small fab shops these days have a plasma table, so I wouldn’t worry about an L-shaped plate. In fact, I would prefer it. CJP welding two thick plates is more work and controlling distortion of the plate can be quite a challenge.
Our interpretation is the same - see my initial response, but clearly others have a different take. And what if you have a 4.9% increase in dead, live and snow on a member subject to all (3) load cases?
The removal of the 5% stress increase isn't the root of the confusion, but rather the language change from gravity loads to dead, live or snow.
I disagree; it is clearly...not clear. See above. The goal isn't to sidestep any requirements but to reflect the code adopted level of risk and extend...
It certainly can work as @phamENG indicated but is well outside the IRC and would require some creativity even for an engineered design. But that's where the fun is, no?
My first thought would be to take a Riemann sum type of approach in which you would subdivide the curve into straight wall...
Yes - you must become one with your inner lawyer when it comes to the IEBC. I'm going to go against the consensus so far and say that my interpretation of the 2021 IEBC is for each load case (not sure I completely agree with that, but that is how it reads). The 2015 IEBC was clear this exception...
Results will very much depend on the weldment and resulting heat input. For larger weldments a WPS will be key as @r6155 eludes to in order to keep interpass temperatures within an acceptable range, what that range is will be your job to determine.
Moments are resolved through baseplate connections all the time with much larger loads, if properly designed and detailed - no problem. Plus, you can make the arch happy with the drainage/thermal break detailing aspects which would be obliterated with a backspan beam into the floor framing.
I’d prefer the joists to simple span to the front edge beam and cantilever an edge beam off the HSS post at each end. That may prove tricky to meet the arch’s minimal depth at the front edge though.
Hopefully there’s some blocking or something for the center handrail post at the edges behind...
Yes. I made the gross assumption that there was a VLFR element somewhere under the wall the shear would be dragged into.
If it’s truly to act as a single diaphragm I’d likely first try and do as @JAE suggests, but the trades usually hate that idea.
Seems overly complicated, but I assume you have some very high shear demand with those details. Typically, I just fasten the blocking between the truss top chords to the wall studs and feel that adequately spreads the low roof shear into the attaching wall. As for hold downs, I imagine the shear...
If the sleeper is relatively much stiffer than the existing joists the idea can work to spread the load out - a 4x8 probably won't cut it. If you can go with a deeper SCL beam or steel, that could get you there.
As @BAretired mentions, for steel it's easier as your yield moment is always the same along all lines. For most typical connections the controlling yield lines are also pretty well established. Design guide 16, some new equations in the manual for out-of-plane loads on HSS walls are all based on...
I calculate the tension in my slab bars to balance the eccentricity of the haunch, then proportion the flexural capacity of the slab based on the equivalent moment.
