The rotation provided by 1/16 oversize bolt holes is not all that significant and is present in any splice plate moment connection anyway. They are called pins because they have been shown to have the flexibility or ductility to behave as a pin.
They recently changed these to be structural only. If you felt moderately confident with the lateral exams and are already studying for the vertical, you don't need to study for the PE. Having gone in quick succession PE>SE vertical (B+D) (holding off on vert D until next spring with the longer...
It is certainly conventionally treated as a pin condition. Provided there is a sufficiently stiff load path above the base plate, you are ok to call it as a pin.
If no lateral load on the support and the beam is rotationally supported from framing elements at the level of the beam, there is nothing to really check. At some point a stack of shims under a stiffened beam might not provide enough rotational stability, though I would think that's taller than 4"
Why even replace this with concrete? Grating is cheap and easy, maybe too ugly, wood could be used and have some kind architectural cover. If you need something that looks exactly like this, then just leave it in place.
Well the linearity of the material would matter, since something like reinforced concrete would be become less stiff as it is loaded, though the question seems more theoretical. I suspect for any practical case you don't really need to account for large displacements causing membrane stresses in...
It's an interesting though that hasn't generated as much discussion as I would have hoped. Up north, we are designing pedestals as concrete not detailed for seismic resistance but bumping up forces by something analogous to the overstrength factor. I generally steer clear of AISC 341 anytime...
Since they are full of holes, it's not likely to have much torsional strength, and it would be a huge science project to figure out the capacity anyway. You're better off getting rid of the torsion.
If you aren't actually relying on the bending capacity at the corner, then go with the second detail and call it a day, no need to check development length.
I couldn't digest this entirely - but I ran my own check and also got the same answer except with 37.5 degrees being from the vertical line and not the horizontal one. I think that makes more sense - the wider the plate the closer it comes to just folding in the middle.
Some level of checking is baked into the allowable stresses for wood. Would that post be ok if it was sized for select structural? Maybe not. I would probably recommend the owner continue to monitor, but it's likely nothing.
I don't actually ever use it for slab design - just too tedious. Only ever for slab evaluation - once you know exactly the layout and the reinforcement, and only vary the loads, it's not as bad
It's really not a program, I just type in the equations (different depending on the yield line mechanism you are looking at), and just play with the inputs until I minimize the energy dissipated. This one is for a yield line mechanism described above on simple supports.
I recommend Practical Yield Line Design by Kennedy and Goodchild, you can probably find it online for free. I've never heard of BA's method of differentiating the equations for work or energy - I just plug the formulas into mathcad and iterate the inputs til I'm happy.