Structural Engineering: 2007-10-14

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Hand Lettering Font for Windows programs and for CAD programs that use True-Type fonts.

Last week I asked if anyone was using a hand-lettering style font in Autocad. I did not receive a link to one but I did find a site on the internet with over 18,000 fonts that you can download for free, or if you prefer, you can download all of their fonts in one file for about $18.00 through PayPal. I am posting the link below as these are true type fonts and the one I liked was called Architecture Bold which was nicer than the SHX shape file I found that was a simplex style. I think the true-type font was much nicer. There is a tremendous stock of fonts including symbols styles that could take you forever to get through.

One thing to note – the page links are located at the top of the page. I kept looking at the bottom thinking that when I got to the bottom of the first ten or twenty fonts I would find an arrow or number so that I could move to the next page.. After a while I figured it out and found at the top right of the list rather than the bottom so don’t waste your time. Each font comes in a zipped package with installation instructions

There is an Architectural Lite and Bold. The bold looks pretty good so I downloaded it and will try It out later. In case you are interested, the site is located at: http://www.fontstock.net and the particular font “Architect bold” is located at http://www.fontstock.net/fontsA/41/index.html . There is an Architect (simple) and an Architect bold (the one I liked) and an Architecture (this is over the top and copyright by Corel back in 1992. I like the Architect Bold and will give this one a try.

You might want to bookmark the stock page as the collection of fonts is very extensive.

Enjoy

Denis

Re: ASCE 7-05

On Oct 20, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. wrote:

> Actually makes sense, as engineers are not known for their
> communication ability
> Gary
Not the good ones. Engineering is discipline of communications--we
don't (routinely) make things; we tell people who do how to makes
things properly. That's what drawings and reports are all about--
communicating instructions unambiguously to artisans (for lack of a
better word) can give materials a specific usefulness. We don't do
science or math; we use science and math to make sure the
instructions we communicate are soundly based in physical principles.

My own experience is that academics who teach engineering tend to
lose sight of the need for communications and organization--maybe out
of desire for greater rigor in presentation or just a tendency to
impress the onlooker with technicalities. I know that's happened with
the Pressure Vessel Codes. With the ASME Codes, I think the problem
is that industry isn't supporting Code writng efforts like they once
did, and academia has necessarily moved in. I've always suspected
(without an ounce of actual proof) that it's what happened when LRFD
was introduced.

Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
chrisw@skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen.
.......................................| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania
1864)
http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw/

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*

http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: ASCE 7-05

But we have computers, now ....

> From: "Mark Deardorff" <mark@rstavares.com>

> Probably with PhD's, too!

>> From: Garner, Robert [mailto:rgarner@moffattnichol.com]

>> Ahhh, the intricacies and convolutions of ASCE 7. Really,
>> really hard to believe that this was actually written by engineers.

>>> From: Mark Deardorff [mailto:mark@rstavares.com]

>>> I am confused! I may just be missing something but here is my quandary.
>>> Chapter 11 has the same seismic formulas as earlier codes. But then there
>>> is chapter 12 the title of which uses the term, "Building Structures."
>>> This yields higher base shears than chapter 11. Which one should I use?

>>> I think I just answered my question. I was looking at section 12.14, not
>>> 12.8 which covers the equivalent force method.

>>> But what IS chapter 11 for?

>>> Mark E. Deardorff, SE

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: ASCE 7-05

Actually makes sense, as engineers are not known for their communication
ability
Gary

Garner, Robert wrote:
> Ahhh, the intricacies and convolutions of ASCE 7. Really, really hard
> to believe that this was actually written by engineers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Deardorff [mailto:mark@rstavares.com]
>
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 9:49 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05
>
> Never mind. Just figured it out.
>
> Mark E. Deardorff, SE
>
> R & S Tavares Associates, Inc
> 9815 Carroll Canyon Road
> Suite 206
> San Diego, CA 92131
> Phone: 858-444-3344
> Phone: 209-863-8928
> mark@rstavares.com
> www.rstavares.com
>
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECURITY NOTICE:
> This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain confidential and
> proprietary information and may be legally privileged or otherwise
> protected
> by law. It may be read and used solely by the intended recipient(s), and
> any
> review, use or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are
> not
> an intended recipient, please notify us immediately by replying to the
> sender and delete this e-mail, including any attachments, from your
> system
> immediately without reading, copying or distributing them. Thank you for
> your cooperation. R&S Tavares Associates Inc. and its client retain all
> proprietary rights they may have in the information.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Deardorff [mailto:mark@rstavares.com]
>>
>
>
>> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 9:37 AM
>> To: seaint@seaint.org
>> Subject: ASCE 7-05
>>
>>
>
>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>> Your following message has been delivered to the list
>> seaint@seaint.org at 09:35:24 on 19 Oct 2007.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>> I am confused! I may just be missing something but here is my
>>
>
>
>> quandary.
>> Chapter 11 has the same seismic formulas as earlier codes.
>>
>
>
>> But then there is chapter 12 the title of which uses the
>>
>
>
>> term, "Building Structures." This yields higher base shears
>>
>
>
>> than chapter 11. Which one should I use?
>>
>>
>
>
>> I think I just answered my question. I was looking at section
>>
>
>
>> 12.14, not
>> 12.8 which covers the equivalent force method.
>>
>>
>
>
>> But what IS chapter 11 for?
>>
>>
>
>
>> Mark E. Deardorff, SE
>> R & S Tavares Associates, Inc
>> 9815 Carroll Canyon Road
>> Suite 206
>> San Diego, CA 92131
>> Phone: 858-444-3344
>> Phone: 209-863-8928
>> mark@rstavares.com
>> www.rstavares.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECURITY NOTICE:
>> This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain
>>
>
>
>> confidential and proprietary information and may be legally
>>
>
>
>> privileged or otherwise protected by law. It may be read and
>>
>
>
>> used solely by the intended recipient(s), and any review, use
>>
>
>
>> or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are
>>
>
>
>> not an intended recipient, please notify us immediately by
>>
>
>
>> replying to the sender and delete this e-mail, including any
>>
>
>
>> attachments, from your system immediately without reading,
>>
>
>
>> copying or distributing them. Thank you for your cooperation.
>>
>
>
>> R&S Tavares Associates Inc. and its client retain all
>>
>
>
>> proprietary rights they may have in the information.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
>> *
>>
>
>
>> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
>>
>
>
>> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
>>
>
>
>> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
>> *
>> *

http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
>> *
>> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
>>
>
>
>> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
>>
>
>
>> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
>>
>
>
>> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
>>
>
>
>> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
>
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
>
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
>
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *

http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
>
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
>
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
>
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
>
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
> The information contained in the e-Mail, including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from Moffatt & Nichol and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us.
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *

http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org

> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Friday, October 19, 2007

Conventional Light Framed Construction Vs. Engineered Building

All,

I mistakenly posed these questions as a response to an earlier post rather than as it's own inquiry and it may have gotten lost in the shuffle.

I'd like to get some of your input on the following:

Do many of you use conventional light framed construction requirements as opposed to providing full engineering calculations for the structure?

What drives your decision for going the conventional construction route, cost to the owner?

Any thoughts on mixing conventional light framed construction braced wall lines with engineered shearwall lines in the same structure? For example, any thoughts/concerns/warnings on having three distinct braced wall lines and two distinct engineered shearwall lines all in the north/south direction......or an entire second story of conventional light framed construction over an entirely engineered first story?

Thanks for any input shared.

Guadalupe

RE: Steel Shape Availability

Check out this catalog from PDM Steel Service Centers. They have a couple of steel yards in CA.

http://www.pdmsteel.com/PDF/pdm_cat2005.pdf

A steel fab guy referred me to the site a few years ago. I check it out whenever I am in doubt, and haven’t had the “don’t you know that shape is no longer available” lecture from a contractor since.

From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmse4603@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:01 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Steel Shape Availability

Anyone know of a good on-line source to find out the most commonly available steel shapes in California?

Does Modern Steel Construction magazine still publish a list of common shapes and if so is it on-line?

thanks,

--
-gm

RE: ASCE 7-05

Probably with PhD's, too!

Mark E. Deardorff, SE
R & S Tavares Associates, Inc
9815 Carroll Canyon Road
Suite 206
San Diego, CA 92131
Phone: 858-444-3344
Phone: 209-863-8928
mark@rstavares.com
www.rstavares.com

CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECURITY NOTICE:
This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain confidential and
proprietary information and may be legally privileged or otherwise protected
by law. It may be read and used solely by the intended recipient(s), and any
review, use or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not
an intended recipient, please notify us immediately by replying to the
sender and delete this e-mail, including any attachments, from your system
immediately without reading, copying or distributing them. Thank you for
your cooperation. R&S Tavares Associates Inc. and its client retain all
proprietary rights they may have in the information.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Garner, Robert [mailto:rgarner@moffattnichol.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 10:53 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05
>
>
> Ahhh, the intricacies and convolutions of ASCE 7. Really,
> really hard to believe that this was actually written by engineers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Deardorff [mailto:mark@rstavares.com] Sent:
> Friday, October 19, 2007 9:49 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05
>
> Never mind. Just figured it out.
>
> Mark E. Deardorff, SE R & S Tavares Associates, Inc
> 9815 Carroll Canyon Road
> Suite 206
> San Diego, CA 92131
> Phone: 858-444-3344
> Phone: 209-863-8928
> mark@rstavares.com
> www.rstavares.com
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECURITY NOTICE:
> This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain
> confidential and proprietary information and may be legally
> privileged or otherwise protected by law. It may be read and
> used solely by the intended recipient(s), and any review, use
> or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are
> not an intended recipient, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender and delete this e-mail, including any
> attachments, from your system immediately without reading,
> copying or distributing them. Thank you for your cooperation.
> R&S Tavares Associates Inc. and its client retain all
> proprietary rights they may have in the information.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Deardorff [mailto:mark@rstavares.com] > Sent: Friday,
> > October 19, 2007 9:37 AM
> > To: seaint@seaint.org
> > Subject: ASCE 7-05
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------
> > Your following message has been delivered to the list
> > seaint@seaint.org at 09:35:24 on 19 Oct 2007.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------
> > > > I am confused! I may just be missing something but here
> is my > quandary.
> > Chapter 11 has the same seismic formulas as earlier codes.
> > But then there is chapter 12 the title of which uses the >
> term, "Building Structures." This yields higher base shears >
> than chapter 11. Which one should I use?
> > > I think I just answered my question. I was looking at section >
> > > 12.14, not
> > 12.8 which covers the equivalent force method.
> > > But what IS chapter 11 for?
> > > Mark E. Deardorff, SE
> > R & S Tavares Associates, Inc
> > 9815 Carroll Canyon Road
> > Suite 206
> > San Diego, CA 92131
> > Phone: 858-444-3344
> > Phone: 209-863-8928
> > mark@rstavares.com
> > www.rstavares.com
> > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECURITY NOTICE:
> > This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain >
> confidential and proprietary information and may be legally >
> privileged or otherwise protected by law. It may be read and
> > used solely by the intended recipient(s), and any review,
> use > or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If
> you are > not an intended recipient, please notify us
> immediately by > replying to the sender and delete this
> e-mail, including any > attachments, from your system
> immediately without reading, > copying or distributing them.
> Thank you for your cooperation. > R&S Tavares Associates Inc.
> and its client retain all > proprietary rights they may have
> in the information. > > > > > ******* ****** ******* ********
> ******* ******* ******* ***
> > * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > * > * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > *

http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email
> you > * send to the list is public domain and may be
> re-posted > * without your permission. Make sure you visit
> our web > * site at: http://www.seaint.org > ******* ******
> ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** > >
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers *
> Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To *
> subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *

http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email
> you * send to the list is public domain and may be
> re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit
> our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ******
> ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> The information contained in the e-Mail, including any
> accompanying documents or attachments, is from Moffatt &
> Nichol and is intended only for the use of the individual or
> entity named above, and is privileged and confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any
> disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of
> the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
> received this message in error, please notify us.
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *

> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: ASCE 7-05

Ahhh, the intricacies and convolutions of ASCE 7. Really, really hard
to believe that this was actually written by engineers.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Deardorff [mailto:mark@rstavares.com]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 9:49 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05

Never mind. Just figured it out.

Mark E. Deardorff, SE
R & S Tavares Associates, Inc
9815 Carroll Canyon Road
Suite 206
San Diego, CA 92131
Phone: 858-444-3344
Phone: 209-863-8928
mark@rstavares.com
www.rstavares.com

CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECURITY NOTICE:
This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain confidential and
proprietary information and may be legally privileged or otherwise
protected
by law. It may be read and used solely by the intended recipient(s), and
any
review, use or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are
not
an intended recipient, please notify us immediately by replying to the
sender and delete this e-mail, including any attachments, from your
system
immediately without reading, copying or distributing them. Thank you for
your cooperation. R&S Tavares Associates Inc. and its client retain all
proprietary rights they may have in the information.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Deardorff [mailto:mark@rstavares.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 9:37 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: ASCE 7-05
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> Your following message has been delivered to the list
> seaint@seaint.org at 09:35:24 on 19 Oct 2007.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
>
> I am confused! I may just be missing something but here is my
> quandary.
> Chapter 11 has the same seismic formulas as earlier codes.
> But then there is chapter 12 the title of which uses the
> term, "Building Structures." This yields higher base shears
> than chapter 11. Which one should I use?
>
> I think I just answered my question. I was looking at section
> 12.14, not
> 12.8 which covers the equivalent force method.
>
> But what IS chapter 11 for?
>
> Mark E. Deardorff, SE
> R & S Tavares Associates, Inc
> 9815 Carroll Canyon Road
> Suite 206
> San Diego, CA 92131
> Phone: 858-444-3344
> Phone: 209-863-8928
> mark@rstavares.com
> www.rstavares.com
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECURITY NOTICE:
> This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain
> confidential and proprietary information and may be legally
> privileged or otherwise protected by law. It may be read and
> used solely by the intended recipient(s), and any review, use
> or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are
> not an intended recipient, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender and delete this e-mail, including any
> attachments, from your system immediately without reading,
> copying or distributing them. Thank you for your cooperation.
> R&S Tavares Associates Inc. and its client retain all
> proprietary rights they may have in the information.
>
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *

> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

The information contained in the e-Mail, including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from Moffatt & Nichol and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us.

RE: ASCE 7-05

Never mind. Just figured it out.

Mark E. Deardorff, SE
R & S Tavares Associates, Inc
9815 Carroll Canyon Road
Suite 206
San Diego, CA 92131
Phone: 858-444-3344
Phone: 209-863-8928
mark@rstavares.com
www.rstavares.com

> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

ASCE 7-05

I am confused! I may just be missing something but here is my quandary.
Chapter 11 has the same seismic formulas as earlier codes. But then there is
chapter 12 the title of which uses the term, "Building Structures." This
yields higher base shears than chapter 11. Which one should I use?

I think I just answered my question. I was looking at section 12.14, not
12.8 which covers the equivalent force method.

But what IS chapter 11 for?

Mark E. Deardorff, SE
R & S Tavares Associates, Inc
9815 Carroll Canyon Road
Suite 206
San Diego, CA 92131
Phone: 858-444-3344
Phone: 209-863-8928
mark@rstavares.com
www.rstavares.com

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Thursday, October 18, 2007

RE: 2006 IBC vs 2003 NEHRP

Thanks all,

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: Steel Shape Availability

Gerard,
Check these links:
http://www.modernsteel.com/readerresources.php
http://www.aisc.org/MSCTemplate.cfm?Section=Steel_Availability2&Template=/SteelAvailability/SteelSearchForm.cfm

They seem to have common shapes and producers database available.

--
Alexander Bausk
CAD manager, Structural engineer at
Nuclear Engineering&Research Lab
Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Steel Shape Availability

DSTV and Peddimat

List,

We have been supplying DSTV files earlier as part of the X steel output with no problems reported in the last two years.

In a recent project our client reports that all the clips fabricated based on our DSTV output (The client calls them CNC files) do not match the hard copy details in the dwgs.

We are at a loss to understand why this has happened.

The client has used a Peddimat machine.

Our version of X steel does not support Peddimat output but gives DSTV output.
Is it possible that our DSTV output is not compatible with their machine ?

How come all the beams and columns have been fabricated okay?

Any thoughts, views, opinions, past experiences will be appreciated.

Would anyone be willing to check a sample DSTV output for one clip angle and compare it with a pdf sketch of the same clip and tell me if there is anything amiss?
Mail me privately and I will send you the relevant files.

In future I am planning to issue a disclaimer and state that we are responsible for hard copy detail dwgs but DSTV files are being supplied gratis without being in our scope and they may be used at the fabricator's discretion and risk.

Regards
Vish

Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!

Shear Connector Design in Precast Sandwich Panel.

The limitation of horizontal shear formula:

Here is a precast concrete sandwich panel;

2" (exterior concrete wythe)+4" (insulation)+3"(interior wall concrete wythe).

I would like to know how I can calculate shear connector's required strength

to accomplish composite action in this sandwich panel.

I see many examples use VQ/I shear formula, but this formula assumes linear elastic continuous condition,

which is not necessarily true for precast concrete sandwich panels.

Don't you know more realistic method?

Thanks!

Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com!

RE: steel flitch plate

The points that Bill, Jordan and you raise are reasons why I did not really want to do a flitch plate. But, I wanted to cover my bases in case I needed to really explore that route.

It turns out that I can do it with a honkin' big PSL. Strength is not an issue at all. It is deflection that is really driving things. But, it appears that the siding is relatively flexible (thankfully not brick) and I don't believe the windows will be an issue. But, I supplies some wood options and some steel options. The downside of ANY steel option is the thermal break of a hunk of steel in the middle of a SIP wall. While wood is not nearly as good as the foam insulation, it is still WAY better than steel.

So, if nothing else, this was a good intellectual exercise.

Thanks for the help!

Scott

Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Kester, P.E. [mailto:akester@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:16 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: re: steel flitch plate

Scott,

I completely agree with Bill on his business/legal reasons not to do it, as well as Jordan with his opinion that the steel plate will take a majority of the load. Even though your LVL is pretty stable from a shrinkage standpoint, under axial load it will creep some but your steel plate will not. I would think the steel plate would "see" a majority of the load due to its higher stiffness as others have indicated. Can you not sandwich a tube steel inside your SIP and even maybe thru bolt or TEK screw the LVL let-ins (splines) onto the sides of the tube?

Andrew

Andrew Kester, PE
Principal/Project Manager
ADK Structural Engineering, PLLC
1510 E. Colonial Drive, Suite 301

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

RE: 2006 IBC vs 2003 NEHRP

You have already received very good responses regarding this issue. The examples are very good training. One engineering school trains on the use of SAP by having the students redo selected example problems in SAP.

Developing seismic design and construction concepts into code is a journey (how is that for Zen?). There are some issues that we discover as the NEHRP evolves into the ASCE 7.

The NEHRP design examples (FEMA 451) are a good training tool.

Regards,
Harold Sprague

> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:07:22 -0700
> From: markajohn@yahoo.com
> Subject: RE: 2006 IBC vs 2003 NEHRP
> To: seaint@seaint.org
>
> Scott, Thomas,
>
> Thanks for the responses. I already have the IBC,
> although not the ASCE 7 yet. I now have the
> opportunity to spend a considerable amount of money
> for training. If the NEHRP, commentary, numerous
> design examples, etc. follow the IBC closely, that
> would be good to know, I could just use that instead.
> I know there are one or two (maybe more) people on
> this list server who were involved in writing these
> documents who it would be interesting to hear from on
> this.
>
> Regards,
> MJ
>

Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today!

re: steel flitch plate

Scott,

I completely agree with Bill on his business/legal reasons not to do it, as well as Jordan with his opinion that the steel plate will take a majority of the load. Even though your LVL is pretty stable from a shrinkage standpoint, under axial load it will creep some but your steel plate will not. I would think the steel plate would "see" a majority of the load due to its higher stiffness as others have indicated. Can you not sandwich a tube steel inside your SIP and even maybe thru bolt or TEK screw the LVL let-ins (splines) onto the sides of the tube?

Andrew

Andrew Kester, PE
Principal/Project Manager
ADK Structural Engineering, PLLC
1510 E. Colonial Drive, Suite 301

RE: CAD: AutoCAD Revit Structure Suite 2008

---- Donald Bruckman <bruckmandesign@verizon.net> wrote:
<snip>
> The architect can no longer hide bad scenarios from you...

And then I wake up and realize it was all a dream!
:o)

Just kidding.

Thanks for your input Donald. I'm considering Revit because I need/want a 3D structural tool. Unfortunately, most of my projects are with clients who are still using 2D CAD and most of them don't use it very well. Also, most of my projects are wood framed, so it might not have the customized libraries that would make my work efficient. However, my vendor who sells both ACA and Revit is strongly suggesting Revit. What's nice about Revit is that the elements are 3D solids, not something that's a phony 3D. I am also considering ACA with VisionREZ because it's more familiar to me than Revit. Afterall, it's still AutoCAD. The same vendor tells me he has installed a lot of ACA and ADT seats that have not been implemented due to its complexity. OTOH, most of the Revit seats he has installed have been implemented.

This is a very interesting thread to me because I am considering changing CAD programs for the first time in...can it really be 17 years? Where did they all go?

Sigh...

Regards,

Bill Allen

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: IBC Conventional Light Framed Construction

Andy,

It’s in the text of 2308.9.3, just following the list of the eight bracing methods (p.460, top of the 2^nd column):

“For Methods 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, each panel must be at least 48 inches in length…”

“For Method 5, each panel must be at least 96 inches in length where applied to one face of a panel and 48 inches where applied to both faces.”

Therefore, you can’t have a 1’-0” wide bracing panel. (Not even if you continuously sheath, that requires at least 24” wide segments).

Gary

Gary J. Ehrlich, PE

Program Manager, Structural Codes & Standards

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)

1201 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005

ph: 202-266-8545 or 800-368-5242 x8545

fax: 202-266-8369

gehrlich@nahb.com

From: Andy Heigley [mailto:aheigley@jgaeng.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:27 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: IBC Conventional Light Framed Construction

Thanks for your help.

Gary: you stated that you’d have a minimum 4’-0” long panel placed at the midpoint. This is exactly my question. Where does it state that the minimum panel length is 4’-0”?

I know in the IRC it states the 16% of the length, but if you have a commercial building, you have to use the IBC.

Just for example, let’s say my client wants to stay within the limits of Conventionally Framed Construction, but wants a storefront appearance and says I want the openings to be as large as code allows and spacing between windows to be minimal. Let’s say the wall is 30’ long. If I have a 1’-0” wall brace at each corner and one in the midpoint of the wall. It satisfies the 12’-6” end distance, but if you look at the bracing ratio, you are only at 10% of the total wall length.

Now I’ll also state that I’d never use (3) 1’-0” wide brace wall segments in a 30’ long wall to brace the building… but I’m just saying the code seems to have left some guidelines out, or I can’t find them. There should be something like a minimum length to be considered a braced wall segment, must satisfy a minimum H/L ratio or something.

I know I would use my engineering judgment to set minimums in this case, but if I’m to look at the details of the code, they are not there.

Andy

RE: CAD: AutoCAD Revit Structure Suite 2008

I wouldn't say clients won't need the designer. You will have a hard time using BIM if you don't know how buildings are put together. Anybody can draw lines in CAD, but only someone with specialized knowledge, problem solving skills, and a bit of resolve can work with BIM software. I am assuming no one is giving a summer intern BIM work to do, but first thing they will give them is CAD.

- JRW

Donald Bruckman <bruckmandesign@verizon.net> wrote:

I made the switch, (I'm an Architect) to Revit about 18 months ago and wouldn't go back to 2D software or even the partially BIM-inized Architectural Desktop type stuff if you paid me to do it.

Couple of points.

First, expect a steep learning curve. Revit does things and organizes things differently. But stay with it and it will begin to make sense. The biggest problem with Revit is that it is so comprehensive that it doesn't enjoy it when you want to knock out something quick and dirty. So there is a minimum amount of additional work for small projects that may be irrelevant to the work, but that you need to lay in anyway. So it isn't ideal for very small projects or small remodels.

Second, what makes, (or is going to make) your life heavenly is that you are not encumbered by the architect's drawings to understand the design. The architect can no longer hide bad scenarios from you by simply not cutting a section somewhere. Everything in the model can be cut, viewed, rotated, isolated and manipulated. The architect's model is sent to you and all of your questions can be ferreted out by simply rotating the model, cutting sections or viewing the model in 3D from a particular direction.

Third, after you lay in the structure, Revit can run a compatibility check to see if AC ducts or stairways are in the way of the structure, if headroom is an issue and similar things.. You send the structural back to the architect, and his version of the model is updated with your structure. He can then go through the same process and determine if there are design issues. When you get the model back again, changes made to the model since you last saw it are highlighted by Revit so you can see what changed.

Fourth, although I have no knowledge of it, Revit Structure is said to be integrated with some analysis program(s) although I do not know which. I do know that all the beams and columns are all fully documented in the program, so Revit knows what the Sxx or Ixx of that beam you just laid onto the plan is in anticipation of the analysis program kicking in...

Finally, the best thing is that once it's changed on the model, It's changed on each and every plan, section and elevation in the set and if a detail reference is changed, it is changed everywhere. Never again will you have Section A or Detail 8 referenced to the wrong sheet or detail.

I kid you not. I haven't used ACAD more than a half dozen days since I switched to Revit.

Welcome to the brave new world. Pretty soon our clients won't even need us….

From: Jeremy White [mailto:admin@structuralae.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:16 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: CAD: AutoCAD Revit Structure Suite 2008

Bill,

I have very limited experience with Revit (2 small projects), but I do have a few thoughts on the subject.

If you are familiar with other BIM software then it might not be hard to make the switch. When I first started using Revit I found certain seemingly simple tasks frustrating because I knew how to easily do it in 2D CAD, but it seemed Revit complicated the task (until I figured out how to do it, and do it the right way). Then it becomes second nature like anything else. I now sometimes get frustrated that 2D CAD doesn't do some of the things that Revit does.

On another note, I find BIM to be a "fun" way to design a building because you get to actually build it in the software. BIM software helps satify that nagging urge to build/create that just can't be fulfilled with 2D software. Maybe that's just my personality trait, though. I am bugging my bosses to get me another project suited for Revit.

- JRW

Bill Polhemus <bill@polhemus.cc> wrote:

All:

Yesterday was the last day for a "special upgrade offer" for Autocad LT
users to Autodesk's Revit Structure Suite 2008, so I took advantage of
it. Usually I wouldn't be interested in stuff like this, but getting a
big-time building modeling package PLUS full Autocad 2008 for $2,000 was
a bit hard to pass up. I sprung for it.

I'm not sure what I'm getting yet. I have become somewhat acquainted
with TEKLA Structure working with my current contract employer, and I'm
pretty impressed with it. I suspect Revit Structure is probably a lot
the same, but with the added benefit of the Autocad interface, I suspect
it's probably going to give TEKLA a run for its money.

Anyone use any version of Revit? What are your thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: IBC Conventional Light Framed Construction

See Section 2308.9.3 (2006 IBC), after bullet point #8, which requires: “For Methods 2, 3 … , each panel must be at least 48 inches in length”. Section 2308.9.3.1 and 2308.9.3.2 provide alternative methods which result in bracing panels that are less than 48” in length.

Tom

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas D. Skaggs, Ph.D., P.E.
Manager, Product Evaluation

Technical Services Division
APA - The Engineered Wood Association
7011 S. 19th Street
Tacoma, WA 98466
ph: 253/565-6600
fx: 253/620-7235
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andy Heigley [mailto:aheigley@jgaeng.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:27
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: IBC Conventional Light Framed Construction

Thanks for your help.

Gary: you stated that you’d have a minimum 4’-0” long panel placed at the midpoint. This is exactly my question. Where does it state that the minimum panel length is 4’-0”?

I know in the IRC it states the 16% of the length, but if you have a commercial building, you have to use the IBC.

I know I would use my engineering judgment to set minimums in this case, but if I’m to look at the details of the code, they are not there.

Andy

Re: IBC Conventional Light Framed Construction

Good morning all,

Just out of curiousity, do many of you use conventional light framed construction requirements as opposed to providing full engineering calculations for the structure?

What drives your decision for going the conventional construction route, cost to the owner?

Thanks for any input shared.

Guadalupe

----- Original Message -----

From: Ehrlich, Gary

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 8:19 AM

Subject: RE: IBC Conventional Light Framed Construction

Andy,

If I am reading things right, for SDC A & B you'd simply be governed by the minimum spacing requirements of 25'-0" on center and offset not more than 12'-6" from each end. That works out to a theoretical minimum requirement for one diagonal brace or one 4'-0" wide panel placed at the midpoint of the wall. For a 25'-0" long wall, that provides a bracing percentage of 16% of the building length, which is what you would find in the IRC for SDC A & B.

Of course, thinking practically and from a *wind* standpoint, you actually want at least two braces or panels per line, one at each end of the wall or as close to the end as possible, unless you have a very tight spacing *between* your braced wall lines (say, 5 or 10 feet).

Regards,

Gary

Gary J. Ehrlich, PE

Program Manager, Structural Codes & Standards

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)

1201 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005

ph: 202-266-8545 or 800-368-5242 x8545

fax: 202-266-8369

gehrlich@nahb.com

From: Andy Heigley [mailto:aheigley@jgaeng.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:44 AM
To: Seaint
Subject: IBC Conventional Light Framed Construction

Dear list:

If any of you are familiar with the Conventional Light Framed Construction section 2308 of the IBC 2006, I would like some help.

Braced wall lines are defined in section 2308.9.3 but there is no description, at least that I could find, of what total percentage of wall has to be braced. It refers you to figure 2308.9.3 and I understand minimum spacing, end distances they restrict you too, but in their figure they have Braced wall line L1 as the sum of A+B+C, but doesn't A+B+C have to be a certain percentage of the total length L1?

It says in Table 2308.9.3(1) that for SDC C that the total length shall not be less than 25% of the building length, but what about SDC A and B?

Just wondering if anybody else has found this and could direct me to the answer.

Thanks in advance,

Andy Heigley

RE: IBC Conventional Light Framed Construction

Thanks for your help.

Gary: you stated that you’d have a minimum 4’-0” long panel placed at the midpoint. This is exactly my question. Where does it state that the minimum panel length is 4’-0”?

I know in the IRC it states the 16% of the length, but if you have a commercial building, you have to use the IBC.

I know I would use my engineering judgment to set minimums in this case, but if I’m to look at the details of the code, they are not there.

Andy