Let's discuss CDLD's calculations. Please see below and let me know if I’ve understood your position correctly.
Mode 2 can be influenced by the weak links at the gusset connections above and below. It's also likely that these gussets will not align perfectly, which would introduce real...
Thanks, everyone, for your input.
I'm not usually one for unconventional ideas—at least not when it comes to engineering—but the reason I'm proposing this is due to the stair access layout. It's something like this:
The alternative scheme (shown in blue) is another option, but it doesn't...
It's an open structure. The section shown is the central stair tower, with platforms connecting to the top level of the tower.
There are no intermediate diaphragms, as most of the load originates at the top level and can be transferred directly to the vertical framing through the diaphragm...
The vertical bracing layout should follow the configuration shown in the snippet below. Since the compression force is continuous through the bracing members, gusset plates, and beam webs, I believe I need to verify whether the weak-axis stiffness of the beam is sufficient to brace the bracing...
In the second case, the moment is unbalanced; however, the sum of moments about point O — M1+M2+V1⋅L+V2⋅L— is zero, as point O is a hinge. This can be demonstrated using a 2D beam model. Basically, my argument is that no unbalanced moment needs to be transferred through the slab-column joint if...
Need someone to validate my thoughts.
The diagrams on the left show a continuous slab with an idealized fixed joint at the interior column. The unbalanced moment Mu in the slab will be transferred to the top of the column. According to ACI 318-11 Section 11.11.7.1 (Transfer of Moment in...
The ACI 318 Commentary does not consider existing rebar to function as anchor reinforcement for post-installed anchors. According to the code, you may only be allowed to treat them as supplementary reinforcement, not as anchor reinforcement.
Appreciate your insights! I have a few follow-up questions.
My issue is that the load is actually a moving load. If I use L2 as the span, I would essentially have to consider the entire load as the shear force when it is infinitesimally close to the face of the support. In that case, I can't...
The old ACI 318-11 section 8.9 clearly defined the span length of concrete beams/slabs for determination of moment:
I believe the newer versions do not have this definition anymore. However, my question is related to shear.
We know that if a concentrated load occurs between the face of the...