The Engineer's Cost Handbook

AISC 303-10 Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges

This Code sets forth criteria for the trade practices involved in steel buildings, bridges, and other structures, where other structures are defined as those structures designed, fabricated, and erected in a manner similar to buildings, with building-like vertical and lateral load resisting elements. In the absence of specific instructions to the contrary in the contract documents, the trade practices that are defined in this Code shall govern the fabrication and erection of structural steel.
Commentary:
The practices defined in this Code are the commonly accepted standards of custom and usage for structural steel fabrication and erection, which generally represent the most efficient approach. This Code is not intended to define a professional standard of care for the owners designated representative for design, change the duties and responsibilities of the owner, contractor, architect or structural engineer of record from those set forth in the contract documents, or assign to the owner, architect or structural engineer of record any duty or authority to undertake responsibility inconsistent with the provisions of the contract documents. This Code is not applicable to steel joists or metal building systems, which are addressed by SJI and MBMA, respectively.

Steel-Free Hybrid Reinforcement System for Concrete Bridge Deck

Use of nonferrous fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement bars (rebars) offers one promising alternative to mitigating the corrosion problem in steel reinforced concrete bridge decks. Resistance to chloride-ion driven corrosion, high tensile strength, nonconductive property and lightweight characteristics make FRP rebars attractive. However, there are design challenges in the use of FRP reinforcement for concrete including concerns about structural ductility, low stiffness, and questions about their fatigue response and long-term durability. The report presents results from a three-year collaborative investigation conducted by the University of Missouri-Columbia (UMC) and the University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR). Details of the investigation, results and discussions from static and fatigue studies are presented including experimental programs on bond, flexural ductility, accelerated durability, and full-scale slab tests. Based on the results from this investigation, the use of a hybrid reinforced concrete deck slab is recommended for field implementation. The hybrid reinforcement comprises a combination of GFRP and CFRP continuous reinforcing bars with the concrete matrix also reinforced with 0.5% volume fraction of 2-in. long fibrillated polypropylene fibers. A working stress based flexural design procedure with mandatory check for ultimate capacity and failure mode is recommended

Seismic Performance of Hollow Core Floor Systems

The Guidelines are intended to be read in conjunction with NZS 3101:2006, the Concrete Structures Standard and apply to any building with hollow-core floors, whether new or existing. They apply whether or not the building is earthquake-prone or subject to alteration or change of use. The underlying theme of the guidelines is for the structural performance of the hollow-core floor system to comply with the Building Code requirements under full earthquake loading – whether or not this is achieved in a particular case. The Guidelines address the following issues:
• Structure type and implications: Earthquake performance of hollow-core floors is critically dependent on the displacement the structure experiences and the forces that are induced. For example, ductile frame structures will have higher inter-storey displacements than shear wall structures. In addition, supporting beams may be subject to beam elongation due to plastic hinge formation. However, even in shear wall structures, deformations of the structure can lead to excessive strains on the floor units and/or topping.
• Range of floor systems (floor units plus supporting structure): There is a variety of configurations used. Floor unit depth and span varies. Units may span past intermediate columns. They may be supported on walls or beams. Each configuration may have different implications for the structural performance overall.
• Seating details / performance: Seating details in buildings constructed over the last 30 years vary considerably – from those with generous overlap of unit with the support to those with “negative” overlap that rely on reinforcement in the cores of the units. The behaviour of the floor overall is critically dependent on the detailing of the seating details and associated reinforcement.
• Reinforcement details / performance: Reinforcement is needed for diaphragm action and for bending action in the units. The nature of hollow-core floor units is such that the placement and quantity of reinforcement has a critical influence on overall floor performance. More reinforcement does not necessarily give better performance due to the brittle nature of some failure mechanisms.

Liquid Concrete Pressures and Loads on Formwork