ReinisGailitis

Members
  • Content count

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

2 Followers

About ReinisGailitis

  • Rank
    Fellow Member
  • Birthday 09/25/89

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Riga, Latvia
  • Occupation
    Civil Engineer
  • Expert in
    Concrete Structures
  1. Yes, I also think that this would be the case.
  2. Hallo. EN 10025-1 is standard which defines steel grades and EN 14399-1 standard about bolts. EN 1090-1 is for products, thus, any kind of fabrications built in the shop. Cheers
  3. Hello. I haven't spent much time studying these standards but from what I understand 1090-1 is meant for conformity assessment of products (including individual beams, etc) leaving fabrication shops, but 1090-2 is meant for conformity assessment of whole structures as erected on site. Best of luck!
  4. Yes, you are correct with your assumptions about the situation. I wouldn't allow the situation contractor has proposed. Cheers
  5. Unfortunately, that seems to be almost true.
  6. Hello. Simultaneous usage of peak wind pressures on opposing surfaces can sometimes be too conservative - in these cases, it is generally more cost-effective to use wind forces for design of global stability (shear walls and bracings). Another situation where you would want to use wind forces instead of wind pressures would be for slender buildings where their dynamic response to wind becomes significant. Cheers
  7. Hello. So will you share your and your contractors' thoughts? Reinis
  8. Hello. This is indeed an interesting situation. Unfortunately, I cannot answer your question because I also have raised this question (not in the forums, though) and haven't found an answer yet. I have to agree that the situation seems quite odd. After reading a lot of handbooks on Eurocodes I couldn't find an answer. Cheers
  9. Hello, Saadat! If you have Ned / Npl,Rd >= 1,0 then your member is failing in compression, thus, there is no need to check interaction as cross-sections resistance is already insufficient for axial load alone. Have a great day, Reinis
  10. Hello. First of all those kinds of connections are considered to be shear only connections (if their bolts are not preloaded), thus once should not use these for cantilever applications, by which I mean not cantilevering the long beam in the direction perpendicular to the fin plates which make up the connection but rather parallel to them (in the direction of uniformly distributed loads). Besides of that the two plates should not exhibit a lot of torsion from the long beam cantilevering out perpendicular to the plates, because of their low stiffness in torsion - they will make up a moment by two opposite reactions to fix the long cantilever beam. To get the exact value of torsional moment in every plate you should do FEA. Cheers
  11. I don't see a need for it. It's normal practice to weld these kinds of joints without backing plate, at least here. The only thing that matters is full penetration. Cheers
  12. Hallo. Yes, I think that it is ok to treat it like full penetration weld. Note that if the joint will sustain tension you should check the through thickness properties for the base metal which will have tension perpendicular to the "grain". Cheers
  13. I get your point. If there is no road over the basement slab you could just assume the loads as you've just described. If there is a road you should probably contact local authorities so that they provide you with loads that should be used for design. Previously I was referring to loads for bridges, as there's additional information regarding load values and their models. Cheers
  14. Hello I think that you should use traffic loads if the loads provided for access ways for buildings are too small for your application. Cheers
  15. Hallo. Have you checked the Green Book on simple connections by SCI (P358 if I remember correctly)? Cheers