Yes, ACI 318 Appendix D.
Anchor selection is not as simple as applying a FS of 4 and using vendor table values. Appendix D addresses all that is required for anchor designs (anchor spacing, edge distances, etc...).
If you are not familiar with ACI 318 it may make sense to get someone who is.
Thanks Gumpmaster and Wannabe,
I can see designing the connections per Chp 13, but not the support frame as the skid is > 25% of the mass weight (more like 60%). The support frame is a typical 4 column structure (14'x 20' x 5' tall) with moment connections in one direction and vert bracing in...
I have a short (5ft or less) frame supporting a mechanical equipment skid in SDC D. My intent is to avoid seismic detailing per AISC 341 and use the higher R value since the skid and framing are not too heavy.
I am using ASCE 7-05 table 15.4-1 for non-building structures similar to buildings...
The spreader beam may require it's load rating to be displayed, this is per OSHA I believe.
Also, Who will be responsable for the stability of the lifting rig during the pick? and determining the base reactions at the support locations?
If the rig is on a concrete slab or other, that would...
Thanks for the follow up jdg.
I have looked at this alittle more also and I am unable to see how a fillet weld can be sized for the 1.1RyFyAg however. I think I am missing something.
I am assuming the Ag = the flange area of the beam (delivering the tension to the column). Is this correct...
connect: I do not thnk I can use R = 3, per ASCE 7-05 table 15.4-1 my only option to stay in AISC 360 is R=1 which would result in huge foundations. The other options are R=3.25 (per 341), R=2.5 (per 341) and R=1 (360). I am not sure why R=2.5 would require 341 provisions, thought they were only...
It is a simple question with a complicated answer. I found the attached on-line (I was not involved in its' creation) and it can be used as a good starting point to get the answer you desire. Also the attached document appears to be dated by a few years. As always contacting the individual state...
I am looking at designing an OMF per AISC 341-05 Section 11. This will be the first time I do a full blown design to 341 and I have a few questions I would appreciate any input on.
I have an exterior pipe rack in SDC D (non-building structure similar to buildings) designed to R=3.5 (using ASCE...
zstructural,
To comment on your question,are they still using the '97 UBC somewhere? Yes they are, in Bolivia. Just learned this from doing a project there.
And they have bigger issues down there than using an outdated building code.
I am looking through a design example in the NEHRP (FEMA 451) Recommended Provisions Aug 2006 and it states that “if a value of R in either direction is less than 5, the smaller value of R must be used in both directions”.
It references NEHRP 2000 sec 5.2.2.2.1 (2003 sec 4.3.1.2) for this...
Mike,
Nothing has happened other than reports of other similiar vessels of the same time period having issues/ cracking in the webs with large copes that may not been accounted for properly. You are correct about the estimated weights, we have estimated (on the high side hopefully) of about...
TJ,
I see what your getting at. My thinking is that the current web is overstressed (by 30%) which includes a reduction in thickness for corrosion allowance which has not been verified via testing, so the existing condition may be slightly overstressed but within the factor of safety of the...
BA,
I like your approach / idea. When weld along a-c is performed (even if skip welded) wont I be in the same position of loosing base material strength due to melting at the connection location where shear is greatest?
I am not following how adding the weld along b-d first will strengthen the...
Thanks for the all replies, A few clarifications.
The product is approx 20-25% of the end reaction (240 kips max). I dont think this reduction will get me there.
The beam is coped and frames into another W36.
A crane was used to set the vessel back around the time my parents were born...
Toad
You are correct, the web is carrying the shear (80% of allowable) but the web in the current condition has to carry the bending ( R * Cope length) due to the lack of flanges at the cope location.
The proposed bars are for flexural strength in positive bending.
