Ontario seems to have something similar. The guide by PEO "Assuming Responsibility and Supervising Engineering Work Guideline" states:
"[...]there may be situations where engineers are required to assume responsibility for work that has been prepared by others outside of the province. These...
Why not just extract the total weld force along a weld line from the FEA and use that to design the weld if the geometry is so complicated that you can't do it by hand?
If you really desperate to actually do a stress analysis, then in the same vein of human909's suggestion, look at how...
At least for us, which requires 3rd party software verification, the process is to put an image of the stamp and signature with automatic date stamp, and then digitally sign the document. The digital signature isn't a visual thing, it's an embedded code (not sure if this is the right word) into...
Yes, if you purchase the requisite addon. I wouldn't call it more fleshed out, the programs are virtually identical save for one having the capabilities to model shell and solid elements.
That's unfortunate. So basically those that own perpetual licenses will have to switch to the subscription to get access to the newer versions with code updates etc.?
RSTAB is the exact same as RFEM, just without the shell elements, so if someone likes RFEM, they should like RSTAB as well. I'm personally a big fan of the programs and wish I had access to them. The initial price is attractive, however once you get to all the addons for design and other...
If you think that's bad, wait until you start considering continuous beams (a very common occurrence in residential/Part 9 construction) compared to the Part 4 calculations.
Funny enough Bones, I tried the same thing last week. I didn't get a chance to delve too deeply into the 'why' with the lack of correlation, but what I found in the example I looked at was the model exhibited the general behaviour and mimicked the distribution of forces, however the magnitudes...
Definitely need to include the notional loads. The non-linear analysis (along with stiffness reduction) is what allows you to use K = 1 for the design of members, but you still need to account for destabilizing loads.
With SAP2000, there should be an option to automatically generate the...
Conceptually, a diaphragm is just a deep beam. So assuming you have a lateral load in the N-S direction, then the diaphragm is just a beam with two simple supports with a slight overhand beyond each support. You'll end up with load reversal for your chord axial forces since you'll have both...
Check the commentary for guidance perhaps? I'm not familiar with the IRC, but the Canadian equivalent (Part 9 of the building code), you only need to consider the simplified snow load applied as a balanced snow load on the entire roof.
There is a provision that states that in situations where...
This would fall under the category of an amusement structure under ASCE 7. So for seismic R = 2.5, Omega = 2.5, Cd = 2.5.
I think as dik pointed out, 100 psf for your live load, and then use the appropriate fraction of that to add to your effective seismic weight as per the code. The problem...
I don't know if #1 is applicable. In my Kassimali structural analysis book, the example they provide has a height to length ratio of 0.5. The only stipulation to the method is that it should be limited to "relatively low building frames", although not clarifying what's the threshold.
For #2, I...
Ok, as an update, I was able to find a source that addresses my original question now that I was able to get back to the office. I'll post it here for everyone's awareness. From Brzev, S., & Pao, J. (3rd Edition):
"A non-prismatic approach is used in conjunction with the moment distribution...
That makes sense, and I would be curious to know how common/prevalent it is to follow the procedure outlined to the letter, or whether the rigid offset simplification is considered good enough.
It's still unclear to me what the second methodology is about.
I've been working through the design of a two-way slab based on the elastic frame method in the CSA A23.3 standard, and there is one part of the code that is unclear to me and I don't have the commentary or reference in terms of the rationale behind these provisions.
Based on my understanding...
One thing for sure to consider would be the effect of torsion. You're going to get a tension-compression couple and would likely check that force against the requirements for Chapter K (off the top of my head) for the side wall of the column yielding and punching failure. Also would also include...
