Best to ask the geotech consultant on how to apply the allowable and ultimate coefficient of friction to avoid any misenterpretations. Its the first time I heard about this and would like to know his answer.
There is no allowable and ultimate coefficient of friction.
There is only an allowable and ultimate dead load (your normal force to be multiplied by the coefficient to get the friction force).
Thanks mike20793. Thats the thing it only mentioned "detailed" in the line (...not specifically DETAILED for seismic resistance). Should I take it as it also meant designed?
It got me thinking that using UBC97 for connection design is overly conservative. As far as I know it doesnt have this...
Thanks, I will be awaiting your response. I am just surprised that only a matter of 0.5 difference in R value (for ordinary moment frames) can make it possible for you to disregard AISC 341. I am hesitant not to apply the overstrength factor since I have been applying it to all my previous...
Anyone?
If I take R = 3 for my ordinary steel moment frame in a design category C earthquake design, I would not need to use the overstrength factor in the forces for my connection design?
Gents,
Can anyone tell me how to get the required moment for connection design in seismic applications for an ordinary steel moment frame using ASCE 7-05 and AISC 360-05? I am using R = 3 so no need to go to AISC 341. (By the way, why would anyone use R = 3.5 when you will be forced to design...
Yes I do believe lots of engineers have different opinions regarding this. I think it will boil down to how conservative you want to be. If it would make you sleep well at night and cost is not that of an issue, then just include it.
But I do still want to see the designs that you mentioned...
Placing the precast rock on the ground and burying it are two different things. I haven't seen a footing design wherein the weight of a footing is added to the seismic weight for stability checks on a foundation.
If you are shifting to using DAM, its better to forget the K method. I heard from someone before that the AISC is trying to remove the K method since its mostly just applicable in typical looking frames.
KootK has a good point there. If sliding did actually occur during seismic condition, wont you have like a slide bearing support on a building wherein it massively reduces the seismic forces experienced by the structure?
My opinion is no, dont consider it. Just use the seismic weight on...
Please see the attachment to clarify my questions.
I am getting bigger capacities on the inner bolts (hence bigger loads to be passed to the column on the inner bolts). Im just wondering if the formulas in the design guides are still applicable. The column flange might already fail around the...
Are there any references in checking column flange bending when my end plate is behaving like a "thin" plate? If my end plate is behaving like a "thin" plate, the forces on the outer bolts are not equal to the forces on the inner bolts (unlike in the "thick" behavior, all bolt forces are equal)...
I only have the ASCE 7-05 with me and it says...
For free roofs with an angle of plane of roof from horizontal
0 less than or equal to 5deg and containing fascia panels, the fascia
panel shall be considered an inverted parapet. The contribution
of loads on the fascia to the MWFRS loads shall be...
How do I compute for the wind load for the remaining walls for an open building? I am doing a Gable type structure with a small covering at the top part of the wall (connected to the roof eave).
ASCE 7-05 states that it is an open buiding if area of opening is 80% the gross area of wall.
But I...
