/diy/ - Do It Yourself

>>1113165
massive Overdesign + Reinforced concrete.

>>1113169
I don't know him.

>>1112148
Thanks.

>>1112145
Piles would likely be the best answer. Down to something solid. Movement of water is your enemy. The best way would be to get a rig and bash in some precast piles down to something more firm, do a load test on them and build your house on top.

>>1112603

How is the foundation 'failing'? Subsidence?

>>1112627
Bullshit. ''''life''''' has nothing to do with it.
There are usually two limit states for design:
ULS: Ultimate limit state - failure of the structure
SLS: Servicability limit state - ''''look and feel''' - deflection, vibration, cracking, leaning etc. that will not adversely affect the structure, but will scare/piss people off.

ULS Design these days is governed by exceedence probability and how long you want the structure to last.

Take our normal design life of 50 years.
In that 50 years you design for loads based on a 5% exceedence probability for a characteristic (non factored) load, right at the end of a distribution. This is especially important with water/flooding, seismic, snow and wind loading.

The safety factors on top of these loads are still really 'best practice'. 100 years ago, Concrete in the UK had a safety factor of 2, now we work 1.35-1.5.

http://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/doc/WS2008/EN1991_2_Malakatas.pdf
Page 12 - probability distributions.

>>1111676
Sorry buddy, long day at work. I'll take a look tomorrow.

Pretty simple, what sort of timbers are you using? Spruce? fir?

>>1111524
I actually have no idea what a rambler is, but seismic reinforcement isn't something that can typically be done with a few brackets at the foundation of a house.

If it's timber construction, frames are typically resistant to earthquake because they flexible and can dissipate the energy through connections and wall panels.

I have no idea how your house is constructed, what it's made out of, how the foundations are placed, what they're made of, nor any experience with the magnitude of earthquakes in your part of the world. Sorry.

I can't even give you a rule of thumb, because here in the UK (outside of hospitals and nuclear plants) we do not design for seismic. At all. Zero seismic design.

>>1111485
Nothing is really 'fireproof' to be honest.
Even stone cracks under intense heat.

With regards to timber, if you want the house to last, avoid timber frame. Not because timber won't last, but because measures to ensure timber longevity are probably a little too involved for what you want.

Careful detailing of connections etc. Additionally, bugs love sapwood, so you'd have to go for heartwood etc.

Anyway. What about reinforced concrete? RC is robust, and you can design it to have significant fire resistance.

Clay bricks also have reasonable longevity if you design and lay them correctly.

Also depends on your budget & what you want it to look like.. Bricks are cheap, RC is more expensive, but can offer more flexibility etc.

When I self build (if I ever get round to it) I'll likely choose RC frame, or Steel frame.

>>1111402
The only experience with stone I have is portland stone, and some italian marble. Usually for high end staircases.

On a side note, I came across these guys a few months ago: http://www.thestonemasonrycompany.co.uk/ - post tensioned stone.

Stone is highly variable, so really your best bet is to ask someone who works in it locally. There's no way I'd be able to really give you advice about the type to be used.

That being said, traditional stone houses don't have to be wood framed. There are stone walls all over the world with no mortar that have lasted millennia. What I'd suggest though is that if you're building from new and not restoring something old (already made from stone) is to use more modern methods, or your walls are going to have to be thicc. Not to mention the heat/damp issues associated with the material.

Is there any reason you don't want to use more modern masonry units with a stone cladding?

>>1111154
Looks simple enought.

Not sure what the scale is, but Building Control probably wouldn't allow the gaps in the risers to be over 100mm (baby head size)

>>1111155
Yeah, but
>kips
like wtf man

>>1111094
lel. relax, you didn't have to delete it.

Actually the clients are usually off on 'business' in Macau or Kazakhstan or the Emirates or some shit.

I'm not sure how it is where you are, but here in the UK, Architects act as contract administrators for small residential projects.

We only really deal with them, not the clients directly - unless they want us to get involved.

Client involvement in the design and building of structures is generally time consuming and pretty taxing.

>>1111067
Matey, that's nothing.

When you see stuff like "bakery", "guest dining room" and "Staff Quarters" in a central london private house - you know you had better not fuck anything up.

>>1110904
>>1110901

You cannot become a Chartered Structural Engineer with anything less than a Master's Degree.

Here you have no choice.

There are other 'grades' available for the awarding body though.
"Associate Member"
"Technician Member"

but none of these titles are comparable to "Chartered Engineer"

>>1110891
>With a concrete structure and masonry walls, unlike they usually do it in the US
How long is a piece of string?

There's a lot of information required senpai.
>cover to concrete
>specification of the masonry units
>what is the building used for
>is there any fire lining
>what is the temperature of the fire
>extent
>where is the fire
>are there balconies or a shared atrium

etc.

As the buttpained dude said, it's literally impossible. Fire modelling is very very complex, so I can't tell you.

If you're designing, the fire rating and cover to steel in concrete will be dictated by local regulations and design codes.

>>1110824
Missed this post.

I literally have no idea.
I know that WTC 1 & 2 were subject to a progressive collapse mechanism, but that's probably not relevant.

>>1110878
>being upset about inflammatory comments on 4chan

You don't HAVE to post in the thread you know.

>>1110875
Given the size, configuration, construction material,, and specification you've given:

about three fiddy.

>>1110871
Hey relax.

I say what I see.
I see that the vast majority (like 98%) of Architects that I have to deal with on a daily basis are at least one of the following:

>borderline retarded
>big whiny babies (literally tantrum throwing, crying while I'm shouting at you, types)

>>1110822
>>1110834

see: >>1110763
That post was me.

>>1110766
I should have got a trip for this.

Proof: Old archive thread

>>/diy/thread/S1058858#p1059677

check the trip

>>1062726
I'll be honest senpai.

We are all autismo, but some engineers are better at hiding that autism, or compartmentalising their aspie tendencies behind a veil of 'normalcy'.

I use Linux as my daily driver and consider shitposting on a Korean Islamic appreciation forum 'fun'.There is no way I'm not secretly full autismo.

To some extent, most civils and mechanical engineers are used to just making shit work, regardless of "optimisation" it works, fuck it. So we accept that the world is imperfect. EE and CS are used to more well defined variables.
Also, I think many of us just have an acceptance that at some point we need to get our dicks wet and be normal too.

>>1060928
I'm assuming he's putting slats/battens on top between the middle rail and each side.

>>1060865

You're instincts are correct. You should add some V or X bracing if you want to make it sturdy.

Now I'm not sure what you're sitting on top (slats? some other frame?) but your image currently is literally a box made with hinges in the corners. At some point it will become loose if you're going to be rocking it side to side.

You could cut these timbers yourself desu,

trim the ends to the appropriate angle for the geometry (looks nearly 45 degrees) and use some truss clips or framing anchors.you'd also need a cross halving joint in the middle to have them overlap.

The (weaker) alternative to this is to stick some corner braces/haunches. in the corners

Better yet.... make a ply diaphragm. Glue and screw some 9mm ply over the entire thing - this will basically turn it into a diaphragm wall. No. 12 screws would be structural grade but you could probably nail it to the underside of the top rectangle desu. Keep in mind ply doesn't span far, so if you're going to put it on top; add some additional timbers @ say 400c/c

With respect to 'buckling' - your members aren't thin enough for shear buckling. They're also square enough that they won't be susceptible to flexural buckling either. The only thing they would possibly have problems with is flexural stress... but at this scale I doubt it

Just to be sure: What size are they? and what sort of timber? I'll do a really quick calc for you.

TLDR; Give me the timber sizes and the type; if you want robustness, screw and glue a ply sheet to the underside of the top frame.

>>1060612
In the UK, earthquakes are basically the equivalent of a cat farting.

Seismic design is very strict in sensitive structures (e.g. hospitals) and especially so in seismic zones.

The Eurocode (EN 1998) designates different areas as having different design criteria. You typically design to a simplified response spectra for horizontal and vertical ground acceleration. This is complicated because Every earthquake is different. Often, we take time histories, response spectra from previous earthquakes and apply it to the buildings we design.

For a sense of how critical this is; The christchurch earthquake a few years ago had vertical ground acceleration of almost 1g. The buildings became momentarily twice as heavy as they usually are (typical load safety factors are between 1.3-1.6 - this doesn't include the horizontal movement.

pic related is a soft storey failure in Kobe 1995. Weak columns, strong beams resulted in 'pancaking' of a whole storey. - when you see it, you'll shit bricks.

>>1060344
Economy of Scale. If you've got 300 units, it suddenly becomes viable.

Also, any modular buildings over 10 storeys need to have their own separate wind stability system. So it really depends what you mean by 'high rise'.

Typically, steelwork is bolted on site anyway. Site welding isn't as common here as it is over in the States - again due to quality control issues.

>>1059677
So I've had a look at this, you could probably buy a proprietary system for cheaper than I'd be able to design it for.

This is primarily because I'd be basing the design for robustness and steel occupied structures which is likely different to wind turbine towers and infrastructure.

We don't tend to design with cold-rolled sections - so this is where the proprietary systems would be better. (and cheaper)

You can actually find guy-wire stabilised towers all over the internet - what's more is that the manufacturer will provide you with a warranty.

I know this sounds like a bit of a cop out, but there's no point in me designing and analysing something that I know is not going to fit your requirements ... when there’s stuff available out there already.

>>1059437
You should minimise the amount of welding you do.

Welding is labour intensive in the shop, and difficult to manage for quality on site. I've seen structural frames on site that look like they have hemmaroids because of the shitty welding.

Bolted connections are safer, quicker and generally cheaper.

>>1059421
Yeah OTC is big amongst the civils. No idea why.

Maybe it has something to do with all the business and "systems" stuff we are forced to learn.

Those people tend to be pure civils though. I'm personally more of a technical guy. I prefer analysis and design over 'management', but a lot of my friends came in their pants when they got to put together a Gant chart or do costing etc.

Fuck that.

That's why I ended up being in a niche consultancy doing cool work, while they're doing asset management at network rail.