Structural Engineering: 2007-10-21

Saturday, October 27, 2007

RE: California PE/SE References

Scott,

After looking at the California website again, I believe you are correct.

And thanks to Steve Gordon and Mark Deardorff for offering to help me out. I will dig through my calcs and probably clean them up a little to make a better impression. I'll probably send them off some in a couple weeks, work permitting.

Thanks again,
Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian S Bossley [mailto:BSBossley@venturaengineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:52 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: California PE/SE References

List,

I am, and have been for the last several years, a licensed structural engineer in Ohio (which has a generic PE certification). I have passed the NCEES SEI and am currently sitting for the NCEES SEII test (which I expect to pass). I have been involved in structural design mostly in industrial facilities across the US (under the supervision of my boss, an SE in California), but I have a broad range of experience in design in high wind and moderate seismic areas.

I want to get a license in California and, the way that I understand it, I still have to pass 2 Civil PE tests (one 2½ hr surveying test, one 2½ hr seismic test) in order to gain a Civil PE in California and then I have to pass the 8 hr seismic test in order to gain an SE certification.

My predicament is that I live in Ohio and the only California SE that I know in Ohio who is familiar with my work is my boss. California requires references from 4 civil PE's, licensed in California for my California Civil PE, and references from 3 SE's licensed in California. I understand that I could also gain references by having someone look over samples of my work and/or talking with me and then judging that he/she feels I am qualified to sit for these tests. Would anyone in California be willing to do this? I still have to dig through my old calcs to find something that demonstrates my level of experience, but I wanted to put out my feelers for willing parties and/or suggestions on how to get them.

And, if willing, please contact me privately, unless you'd like to do this for any number of other people who are or will be in my predicament. Thanks.

Brian S. Bossley, PE

Ventura Engineering

7610 Olentangy River Rd

Columbus, OH 43235

Hot Rolled Vs Cold formed steel properties

You can have cold formed and hot rolled steel with equal yield stresses.

There are the following differences:

If you have to care for stability, cold formed steel does not perform as well as hot rolled steel, because it is prestrained by the cold forming process.

If you want to weld the cold formed steel, you have to care for the following two points (not for welding the hot rolled steel):

If you have a QHP or a RHP (cold formed), for example, you have to be cautious with welding at the corner part (cold formed part) of the profile. In Germany/ Europe we have some presuppositions in the standard for welding in these parts. I think, there are also some in the us standards.

Some steels get there yield stresses, they have, with cold forming. The steel itself has lower yield stresses and is hardened by cold forming. If you weld this steel, it looses the prestraines and therefore its higher yield stresses. The yield stresses may fall to the lower yield stresses, it has without cold forming.

So the properties of hot rolled steel are usually better than the properties of cold formed steel with equal given yield stresses.

Regards

Alfred Mueller

International welding engineer

University of applied sciences, Karlsruhe, Germany

Von: Lakshmana Nukala [mailto:lakshmana.nukala@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Samstag, 27. Oktober 2007 07:22
An: seaint@seaint.org
Betreff: Hot Rolled Vs Cold formed steel properties

Hi all

Can any one help on the difference between the hot rolled and cold formed steel properties?

Does cold formed steels have higher yeild stresses than hot rolled?

Best Regards

Lakshmana RK Nukala

Friday, October 26, 2007

Hot Rolled Vs Cold formed steel properties

Hi all

Can any one help on the difference between the hot rolled and cold formed steel properties?

Does cold formed steels have higher yeild stresses than hot rolled?

Best Regards

Lakshmana RK Nukala

RE: IBC06 / CBC07 Stone veneer on metal studs

I took a look and couldn’t find any specific requirement in the IBC. A quick Google search for manufacturer’s literature finds several recommendations for #8 self-tapping screws, plus one ICC-ES report (http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-1593.pdf) for #8 wafer-head screws at the same spacing as the nails for wood studs. A bunch of legacy UBC and BOCA reports have similar requirements (either #8 self-tapping or #8 wafer-head). I didn’t see anything specific to seismic.

I’m surprised AISI hasn’t submitted a code change to fix the hole in the code. (Unless they have for the 2009 IBC, for which the changes aren’t published yet.)

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: Yi Yang [mailto:YI@summit-sr.com]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:40 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: IBC06 / CBC07 Stone veneer on metal studs

IBC2006 1405.6 listed specific requirement for attaching stone veneer up to 10" to concrete, masonry and stud walls. It specifically mentioned wood studs with nails etc., but it did not say anything for metal studs.

Does IBC2006 allow stone veneer up to 10" be attached to metal studs? Does anyone know if there is any specific requirement for the attachment, or is it up to the designer to justify any attachment (this is for SDC=D)?

Thanks for any info.

Yi Yang

Thursday, October 25, 2007

RE: California PE/SE References

Brian,

To my knowledge (unless they changed it), the references for the PE in California does NOT need to be California PEs. When I applied to get my PE license in California, my references were not necessarily licensed in California (some might have been, but I don't believe any were).

The SE license in California is another matter. You do need to have 3 SE references to apply for the SE license.

Regards,

Scott

Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian S Bossley [mailto:BSBossley@venturaengineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:52 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: California PE/SE References

List,

I am, and have been for the last several years, a licensed structural engineer in Ohio (which has a generic PE certification). I have passed the NCEES SEI and am currently sitting for the NCEES SEII test (which I expect to pass). I have been involved in structural design mostly in industrial facilities across the US (under the supervision of my boss, an SE in California), but I have a broad range of experience in design in high wind and moderate seismic areas.

I want to get a license in California and, the way that I understand it, I still have to pass 2 Civil PE tests (one 2½ hr surveying test, one 2½ hr seismic test) in order to gain a Civil PE in California and then I have to pass the 8 hr seismic test in order to gain an SE certification.

My predicament is that I live in Ohio and the only California SE that I know in Ohio who is familiar with my work is my boss. California requires references from 4 civil PE’s, licensed in California for my California Civil PE, and references from 3 SE’s licensed in California. I understand that I could also gain references by having someone look over samples of my work and/or talking with me and then judging that he/she feels I am qualified to sit for these tests. Would anyone in California be willing to do this? I still have to dig through my old calcs to find something that demonstrates my level of experience, but I wanted to put out my feelers for willing parties and/or suggestions on how to get them.

And, if willing, please contact me privately, unless you’d like to do this for any number of other people who are or will be in my predicament. Thanks.

Brian S. Bossley, PE

Ventura Engineering

7610 Olentangy River Rd

Columbus, OH 43235

RE: Tool for calculation of Sesimic Design Categoty (SDC) per 2006 IBC / ASCE7-05

Suresh:

Thanks for sharing your spreadsheet, I like it.

For a preliminary analysis I think it provides a quick estimate.

However, keep in mind that the "Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and S1" in your spreadsheet represent the highest values whithin the given zip code, which result in highest "Seismic Response Coeffecient" (base shear.)

I strongly suggest that for each speicific project site, the corresponding Latitude & Longitude (1) to be used. By doing so the designer will get the accurate values that can be substatially lower than the max.

And I still prefer to directly use the USGS " Java Ground Motion Parameter Calculator " (2) for the fact that it gets updated on a regular basis, and not to use a separate spreadsheet.

Note:

(1) The links for finding Longitude & Latitude by address

http://stevemorse.org/jcal/latlon.php

(2) USGS Web page

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/index.php#install_java

Regards
Casey (Khashayar) Hemmatyar, SE
Private email k@hemmatyar.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Acharya, Suresh [mailto:Suresh.Acharya@ci.concord.ca.us ]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:21 PM
To: 'seaint@seaint.org'
Subject: Tool for calculation of Sesimic Design Categoty (SDC) per 2006 IBC / ASCE7-05

I would like to share with you an Excel spreadsheet to calculate SDC based

on ZIP codes, written for use by our staff.

Spreadsheet can be downloaded from here:

http://www.structural.freespaces.com/sdc.xls.class

I appreciate your feedback, including any bug report.

Notes:

1. Remove the .class extension after you download the file. It is an Excel

spreadsheet, works ok with OpenOffice Calc program also.

2. ZIP codes for CA only

Suresh Acharya, S.E.

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

* 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: Try to archive SEAINT mail at Google Groups

Return Receipt

Your Re: Try to archive SEAINT mail at Google Groups
document:

was TMittra@CBI.com
received
by:

at: 10/25/2007 02:30:28 PM

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

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

Tool for calculation of Sesimic Design Categoty (SDC) per 2006 IB C / ASCE7-05

I would like to share with you an Excel spreadsheet to calculate SDC based
on ZIP codes, written for use by our staff.

Spreadsheet can be downloaded from here:
http://www.structural.freespaces.com/sdc.xls.class

I appreciate your feedback, including any bug report.

Notes:
1. Remove the .class extension after you download the file. It is an Excel
spreadsheet, works ok with OpenOffice Calc program also.
2. ZIP codes for CA only

Suresh Acharya, S.E.

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

RE: ASCE 7-05

It should be pointed out that ASCE 7 operates under an ANSI consensus
process, so the main committee and its various subcommittees (wind,
seismic, snow, etc.) should (and in fact do) have balanced
representation from academics, design engineers, product interests, and
regulatory folks.

So in theory, the academics shouldn't be able to dominate the process.
The design engineers and product reps should bring some sense to any
proposed requirements. Of course, theory doesn't necessarily work--at
the very least, many of the design engineers are from large firms and
have a much different perspective than the small office or single
practitioner. And sometimes, the sensible folks simply get overruled.

I actually *am* an associate member of the wind subcommittee for the
2010 update, so if folks here have some specific ideas of areas they'd
like to see improved, I'd be happy to take those back to the
subcommittee. I have already raised some concerns myself about the
sign/wall provisions as they relate to masonry screen wall design.
Others are trying to address the mess that has been made of the low-rise
provisions.

Alternatively, anyone can go to the SEI web site, download a change
proposal form and send a proposal in. I think public proposals can be
submitted up through May 2008.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Wright [mailto:chrisw@skypoint.com]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:00 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05

On Oct 22, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. wrote:

> after reading the seismic requirements three times I was totally
> lost and thought the problem was me. So I called a friend at a
> large engineering company who was assistant head of the industrial
> department and he said the ASCE seismic parts seem to go in circles.
I bet if you'd look at the committee membership, you'd see a high
percentage of academic input. I sound like some kind of populist
loonie, but I'm anything but. The problem is that too many academics
have gone straight from grad school to teaching which is like
quenching without tempering.engineers need to learn to express
findings and instructions simply, precisely and unambiguously just as
much as they need scientific rigor.

> We agreed to ignore it and use the UBC, I believe. I wrote a
> letter of complaint to ASCE and heard nothing back.
I bet you'd hear something back if you volunteered to serve on the
committee.

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/

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

RE: ASCE 7-05

Right now it’s more the latter. In fact, one of the complaints we have with ASCE 7 is that even the “low-rise” method does not account for shielding effects, near-ground reductions in wind loads, and other things that penalize most residential construction. Not to mention the minimum 10psf wind load requirement that makes you design some structures for wind *twice* (once for the analytical loads, once to check the minimum), and the mess that was made of the low-rise method figures in the last cycle (among other issues, they apparently generate roof uplift pressures in some places where they don’t make sense).

The committee is looking at fixing some of those problems this round. We can keep our fingers crossed.

Gary

From: Rhkratzse@aol.com [mailto:Rhkratzse@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:07 PM
To: William.N.Scott@conocophillips.com; seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05

Betcha there's not a lot of "little" people like Dennis and myself, who work alone and design houses (structures) under fairly intense time and economic pressure on those committees. We don't have the time to serve on national committees.

IIRC about 30 years ago residential wind design for the most part consisted of applying 25 psf to the elevation and designing the resisting system from there. Is the new, more complex methodology any "better" for small structures? Or is it just forcing a complex system that may be applicable to large structures onto small structures (and their designers)?

As someone so famously once asked: "Where are the bodies?"

Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
Richmond CA USA

In a message dated 10/22/07 8:55:26 AM, William.N.Scott@conocophillips.com writes:

Actually, the committee is balanced between academic, practicing,
public, and industry people.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Wright [mailto:chrisw@skypoint.com]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 7:00 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05

On Oct 22, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. wrote:

> after reading the seismic requirements three times I was totally
> lost and thought the problem was me. So I called a friend at a
> large engineering company who was assistant head of the industrial
> department and he said the ASCE seismic parts seem to go in circles.
I bet if you'd look at the committee membership, you'd see a high
percentage of academic input. I sound like some kind of populist
loonie, but I'm anything but. The problem is that too many academics
have gone straight from grad school to teaching which is like
quenching without tempering.engineers need to learn to express
findings and instructions simply, precisely and unambiguously just as
much as they need scientific rigor.

> We agreed to ignore it and use the UBC, I believe. I wrote a
> letter of complaint to ASCE and heard nothing back.
I bet you'd hear something back if you volunteered to serve on the
committee.

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

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

**************************************
See what's new at http://www.aol.com

RE: ASCE 7-05

There are days I think that submitting a design example should be a
prerequisite for having a proposal accepted for consideration for a code
or standard. Maybe even a couple of examples--perhaps a residence, a
big-box retail, and a 7-8 story office/apartment building. That should
give a good picture of what the average small firm/single practitioner
would have to cope with if the change passed.

Or one could convince the practicing engineers on the various committees
to cast negative ballots *until* the proponent submits examples. Except
that it's too easy to be voted non-persuasive.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:40 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05

This may rub academics wrong, but building codes should be written to
the
lowest common denominator. This is so mistakes won't be made, not so
that
idiots like me can do the work. You shouldn't have to buy software or
spend
40 hours writing a spreadsheet to calculate wind loads in order to
figure out
what the code requires. You should be able to easily open a code book
and
quickly hand check your computer model output with a calculator on the
back
of a napkin. If not the code is broken.

I used to tell people to quit whining about code changes. I haven't
been in
the profession that long though and have seen 3 different seismic
loading
codes and two wind loading codes. I used to say no big deal to ASCE7
wind
but if history truly repeats itself then in the near future the wind
code
will be completely changed again.

The UBC wind loads were much easier to apply. The designs were not less
safe
otherwise everyone would be retrofitting buildings designed with UBC
wind
loads.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian K. Smith [mailto:smithegr@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:46 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05

Charles,

When was the last time a building failed in Texas, Mississippi,
or
Louisiana due to an earthquake? I don't remember reading about that
event
either but the IBC says we have to consider it. Not only that but in
many
cases I am required to detail the building to meet the seismic
requirements.

I have been using the wind load provisions of the IBC and ASCE 7
for
7 or 8 years. It's not that big of a deal.

Bks

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles R. Ashley Jr. [mailto:charles@advanceeng.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:15 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05

As engineers we tend to learn by failures. After all, it was the 1994
Northridge EQ that spurred major revisions to the seismic provisions in
the
1997.

So I have to ask....when is the last time a Type V building failed due
to
wind in California? Anyone wake up in the morning and find a roof that
doesn't below to you sitting in your front yard?

I am trying to figure out what tragic wind event triggered these
ridiculous
revisions! I am sure there must have been a bus load of innocent
children
involved, I just can't seem to find it.

-----Original Message-----
From: smaxwell@umich.edu [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:35 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05

While I do believe that there are a lot of engineers out there who are
overly
harsh on the various code/standard committees (it is rather easy to
"backseat" drive or complain about stuff when you are not familiar with
the
process or the work that goes on and the difficulty in getting sometimes
50+
people to agree enough on something to produce a provision), I do
believe
that ASCE 7 has gotten a little out of hand with the wind provisions.
Having
messed with the wind loads for signs recently, I can say that it is WAY
to
involved a process to get wind loads for a freakin' sign (it took me
multiple
hours to JUST get the wind pressure for the sign).

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

Quoting "Garner, Robert" <rgarner@moffattnichol.com>:

>
> ASCE has very successfully made wind design into rocket science. Way
to
> go ASCE!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. [mailto:ghodgson@bellnet.ca]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 4:59 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05
>
> I will take back part of what I said. The quality of engineering
> drawings, particularly structural drawings from the US, are very good.
> However when you read computer instructions, technical manuals, and
> codes where they have been prepared by engineering organizations, they
> usually leave something to be desired. The trouble is that they know
> all about their subject but don't realize outsiders are starting from
> scratch; they just assume everyone will know what they mean.. An
> example is 1995 ASCE-I bought their Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
> -- and after reading the seismic requirements three times I was
totally
> lost and thought the problem was me. So I called a friend at a large
> engineering company who was assistant head of the industrial
department
> and he said the ASCE seismic parts seem to go in circles. We agreed
to
> ignore it and use the UBC, I believe. I wrote a letter of complaint
to
> ASCE and heard nothing back. If I am not mistaken, there have been a
> lot of complaints recently about the ASCE wind load requirements.
>
> Christopher Wright wrote:
>>
>> 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******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ******
>> ****** ********
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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:
> *
> *

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

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date:
10/22/2007
7:57 PM

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date:
10/22/2007
7:57 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.6/1086 - Release Date:
10/22/2007
7:57 PM

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

RE: Frost Line

Alexander,

There were some frost-depth studies done for HUD at the Northeast
Regional Climate Center at Cornell University back in 2001 that were
connected to the development of the Frost Protected Shallow Footing
standard and its acceptance in the IBC and IRC. A table relating frost
depth requirements to the Air Freezing Index was generated and proposed
at that time but was set aside so the proponents could concentrate on
getting the FPSF requirements and standard developed and approved.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Bausk [mailto:bauskas@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:25 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Frost Line

I think I have an off-topic question to this one.

Don't you guys in USA have any nation-wide standard for such values as
frost line, temperatures, etc.?
We, here, take the frost line value from a building standard on
climatology.

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

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

Re: California PE/SE References

Brian,

Send me your stuff privately.

--
V. Steve Gordin, Ph.D.
Structural & Civil Engineer
Irvine CA
949.552.5244

RE: California PE/SE References

I would be willing. Unless, of course, you are a Buckeye fan!<g>

Fight On!

Class of 1975

Figueroa Tech (USC)

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.

From: Brian S Bossley [mailto:BSBossley@venturaengineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:52 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: California PE/SE References

List,

I am, and have been for the last several years, a licensed structural engineer in Ohio (which has a generic PE certification). I have passed the NCEES SEI and am currently sitting for the NCEES SEII test (which I expect to pass). I have been involved in structural design mostly in industrial facilities across the US (under the supervision of my boss, an SE in California), but I have a broad range of experience in design in high wind and moderate seismic areas.

I want to get a license in California and, the way that I understand it, I still have to pass 2 Civil PE tests (one 2½ hr surveying test, one 2½ hr seismic test) in order to gain a Civil PE in California and then I have to pass the 8 hr seismic test in order to gain an SE certification.

My predicament is that I live in Ohio and the only California SE that I know in Ohio who is familiar with my work is my boss. California requires references from 4 civil PE's, licensed in California for my California Civil PE, and references from 3 SE's licensed in California. I understand that I could also gain references by having someone look over samples of my work and/or talking with me and then judging that he/she feels I am qualified to sit for these tests. Would anyone in California be willing to do this? I still have to dig through my old calcs to find something that demonstrates my level of experience, but I wanted to put out my feelers for willing parties and/or suggestions on how to get them.

And, if willing, please contact me privately, unless you'd like to do this for any number of other people who are or will be in my predicament. Thanks.

Brian S. Bossley, PE

Ventura Engineering

7610 Olentangy River Rd

Columbus, OH 43235

California PE/SE References

List,

My predicament is that I live in Ohio and the only California SE that I know in Ohio who is familiar with my work is my boss. California requires references from 4 civil PE’s, licensed in California for my California Civil PE, and references from 3 SE’s licensed in California. I understand that I could also gain references by having someone look over samples of my work and/or talking with me and then judging that he/she feels I am qualified to sit for these tests. Would anyone in California be willing to do this? I still have to dig through my old calcs to find something that demonstrates my level of experience, but I wanted to put out my feelers for willing parties and/or suggestions on how to get them.

And, if willing, please contact me privately, unless you’d like to do this for any number of other people who are or will be in my predicament. Thanks.

Brian S. Bossley, PE

Ventura Engineering

7610 Olentangy River Rd

Columbus, OH 43235

Re: Try to archive SEAINT mail at Google Groups

Return Receipt

Your Re: Try to archive SEAINT mail at Google Groups
document:

was Tom Hunt/AV/FD/FluorCorp
received
by:

at: 10/25/2007 06:50:32 PDT

------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are
hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination,
distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon
this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company.
------------------------------------------------------------

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

Try to archive SEAINT mail at Google Groups

Return Receipt

Your Try to archive SEAINT mail at Google Groups
document:

was Tom Hunt/AV/FD/FluorCorp
received
by:

at: 10/25/2007 06:49:02 PDT

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company.
------------------------------------------------------------

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

RE: Pre-Engr. Mtl Bldg. W/ Tilt-up Wall

Return Receipt

Your RE: Pre-Engr. Mtl Bldg. W/ Tilt-up Wall
document:

was Tom Hunt/AV/FD/FluorCorp
received
by:

at: 10/25/2007 06:49:09 PDT

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company.
------------------------------------------------------------

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

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Steel Plate Shear Walls

Dear Mr. Merrick: I really enjoyed your refreshing and intuitive explanation of how steel shear walls behave as you have given below! I have been doing research on steel shear walls since 1998 and have never had felt the behavior the way you describe it , but, you are right on the point based on what I have observed on their behavior.

As for the information, and as Mr. Madden has indicated below, the Structural Steel Educational Council (SSEC) , www.steeltips.org, has published the following Steel TIPS (Steel Technical Information and Product Services) report that I wrote:
"Seismic Behavior and Design of Steel Shear Walls", by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, January 2001. A copy of this and other Steel TIP reports can be obtained from www.steeltips.org, free of charge for downloads from California and Nevada and for those outside Cal/Nev for a nominal charge ($20?). If you review it and have any questions, please let me know and I will be happy to help.

Since 2001, we have completed two more new research/development projects on steel shear walls, the results of which are just being published. As soon as anything is published (next week a conference paper will be on the Internet) I will let you know.

Best wishes and hope this is somewhat helpful.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E.,
Professor of Structural Engineering, Earthquake Engineering and
Blast and Impact Protection of Buildings and Bridges.
Web Home Page:

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh

============================
From: "Gerard Madden, SE" <gmse4603@gmail.com>
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Steel Plate Shear Walls

There is a steel tips back in 2000 or so by Astaneh you can download.

-gm

On 10/23/07, David Merrick <MRKGP@winfirst.com> wrote:

> >
> > Could someone enlighten me about the AISC design guide 20, "Steel Plate
> > Shear Walls"?
> >
> > The article in "Structural Engineering" October 2007, p32 has an example
> > steel plate shear wall design.
> >
> > I did not see any mention additional welding near the steel plate corner
> > zones. I expected more welding for the increase stress when the plate
> > yields by buckling. I did not see any mention that the plate is designed
> > to not yield. There was no mentioning that the corner zone additional
> > welding was used for the full length of the plate to increase but
> > simplify the welder's task.
> >
> > As I recall (Design of Welded Structures, Omer W. Blodgett) for plate
> > ratios of less than 2:1, an equivalent tension strip is created as the
> > steel plate wrinkles. Similar to the wrinkles when pulling on opposite
> > corners of a bed sheet. This tension strip concentrates the plate shear
> > to the corners and increases the shear per length. For a near square
> > plate that increase is about 3 times the stress (shear/length) of a
> > similar but thicker and not buckling plate.
> >
> > This tension strip is small and more like diagonal tension straps,
> > usually leading to the conclusion that the system must assume a
> > non-ductile shear wall with increased base shears or that diagonal
> > braces are more effective.
> >
> > Could someone enlighten me about the AISC design guide 20, "Steel Plate
> > Shear Walls"?
> >
> > Long time ago, in a nuclear power generator building, there were steel
> > plate floor diaphragms, with evenly spaced lengths of edge welding. It
> > was concluded that the existing plates needed full penetration welds at
> > the plate corner zones. Shit hit the fan, but then the work was done.
> >
> > David Merrick
> >
> >

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

Job at The University of Sydney

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer - Structural Engineering

Faculty of Engineering – The University of Sydney

For more information or to apply online, please visit http://position.usyd.edu.au and search by reference number 90632.

Sandra Klinke

University of Sydney

s.klinke@usyd.edu.au

Re: Frost Line

Harold,

This is also the case in Calgary, however, in rural areas for industrial projects we get it as part of the soil report along with cement type (for soluble sulphates, etc.).

Regards,

H. Daryl

Richardson

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

From: Harold Sprague

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:43 PM

Subject: RE: Frost Line

In general it is up to the local municipality to define frost penetration. The UFC 3-310-04 available on line at the Whole Building Design Guide lists Seattle at 9" for frost penetration.
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_310_04.pdf

Regards,
Harold Sprague

Subject: Frost Line
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:45:42 -0500
From: jmicayas@riverconsulting.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

Anybody from Seattle area can tell me how deep is the frost line?

Engr. Julius Micayas

P.E. license no.32969

Senior Lead Structural Engineer

River Consulting- New Orleans

111 Veterans Memorial Boulevard

Metairie, LA 70005

Phone - 504-841-3014 (direct)

504 837-5275 (office)

Fax - 504-837-2986

E-mail: jmicayas@riverconsulting.com

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

RE: Frost Line

In general it is up to the local municipality to define frost penetration. The UFC 3-310-04 available on line at the Whole Building Design Guide lists Seattle at 9" for frost penetration.
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_310_04.pdf

Regards,
Harold Sprague

Subject: Frost Line
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:45:42 -0500
From: jmicayas@riverconsulting.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

Anybody from Seattle area can tell me how deep is the frost line?

Engr. Julius Micayas

P.E. license no.32969

Senior Lead Structural Engineer

River Consulting- New Orleans

111 Veterans Memorial Boulevard

Metairie, LA 70005

Phone - 504-841-3014 (direct)

504 837-5275 (office)

Fax - 504-837-2986

E-mail: jmicayas@riverconsulting.com

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