Structural Engineering: 2007-10-28

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Re: footings look too big

Explain the fact how contractor like to cut corner, hence we are forced to build in additional safety factors within reasonable engineering judgement.

Drew Morris <dmorris@bbfm.com> wrote:

Haan, Scott M POA wrote:
> What would you say to a guy who says your footings look too big?
>
>
I got Jimmy Hoffa buried in there.

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: footings look too big

Haan, Scott M POA wrote:
> What would you say to a guy who says your footings look too big?
>
>
I got Jimmy Hoffa buried in there.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: CO Snow Loads

In a message dated 11/3/2007 12:47:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time, etompos@ntainc.com writes:

Eric Tompos

Hello, you can order it from the Seacolorado.org web-site. I believe the cost is $50.00 but it has more info than just the snow load.
Ahcene Djebli, PE
Colorado Structural Consultants,
Denver CO

Re: footings look too big

You could always tell them to talk to the Geotech. "we ain't gotta a geotech" ...well there ya go then.

-g

On 11/3/07, Bill Allen < T.W.Allen@cox.net> wrote:

Most contractors aren't considering about "repairs after the fact", so that argument is seldom persuasive.

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.

ALLEN DESIGNS

Consulting Structural Engineers
V (949) 248-8588 • F(949) 209-2509

-----Original Message-----
From: ECVAl3@aol.com [mailto:ECVAl3@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 11:31 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: footings look too big

Tell him "concrete is cheap, repairs after the fact aren't!"

S.Macie, P.E.

SLO,CA

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

--
-gm

CO Snow Loads

Can someone please email me a copy of "1989 Survey of Colorado Building Departments" or refer me to a website that has it. I misplaced by copy and I googled it without success.

Thanks in advance,

Eric Tompos, PE, SE

Vice President

NTA, Inc.

Ph: 574 773-7975

Fx: 574 773-5739

RE: footings look too big

Most contractors aren’t considering about “repairs after the fact”, so that argument is seldom persuasive.

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.

ALLEN DESIGNS

Consulting Structural Engineers
V (949) 248-8588 • F(949) 209-2509

-----Original Message-----
From: ECVAl3@aol.com [mailto:ECVAl3@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 11:31 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: footings look too big

Tell him "concrete is cheap, repairs after the fact aren't!"

S.Macie, P.E.

SLO,CA

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Re: footings look too big

Tell him "concrete is cheap, repairs after the fact aren't!"

S.Macie, P.E.

SLO,CA

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

question my authority???!

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Andrew Kester;PE
FN:Andrew Kester, PE
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:akester@cfl.rr.com
REV:20071103T174349Z
END:VCARD

Scott actually brings up a good topic, and all good jokes aside, I think he needs to address this to the owner or client expeditiously before the owner thinks he is an overdesigner. Many owners/developers only care about the bottom line, and if they get a permit and C.O. they assume all is well. Anything over that is just overly-conservative engineering to them, and that can cost you business. I am NOT always sure of the best way to handle these things, but trying to speak directly with your architect or owner and explain that you perform your analysis and calculations to the latest code standards, and that you would gladly review an alternative design and calculations by another engineer.

If this is during the design stage or prior to groundbreaking, you can say "Well, let me review our numbers and drawings to make sure that there was not a miscalculation or drafting error", and do just that. We all make mistakes, sometimes it happens in the drafting stage, or you fill out your footing schedule wrong or put the wrong footing mark on the plans. Even if you are 100% sure and you simply look at your drawings and say to yourself, "Man, I am so right" and call the architect back and say you double checked but you believe your design is to code, then you did your job and you will look better.

I would like to hear from our seasoned vets on this issue because as a young small firm owner I need to have some options ready to save face with owners and clients.

We have had this happen usually from a contractor who says one of the following, or a combination of them, and many times not to us but to the owner or architect:

-We have never done it this way and I have been doing this for XXXX years

-Engineer B down the street does it this way and he says it is fine

-This is a complete waste and overdesign and is costing the owner lots of money (which if I could save I would not return the money but pocket it)

We had a single story retail building with a large covered canopy over near the coast, and it was CMU with some CIP concrete arched beams. Some contractor sub, probably slow from work due to the slow down in residential/condo work, promised he could do the walls ALL in CIP concrete rather than CMU cheaper than CMU (seems crazy to me, but maybe he was really slow or had lots of forms and good subs). We get an Ad Serv to redesign the walls, and the contractor flips out when he gets our drawings as "we put way too much rebar in the walls and he always does them with X amount and the engineer down the street does it this way."

Now the walls were single story and the design was not governed by strength but by ACI vertical and horizontal min reinforcement. We copied that section of the ACI along with some simple hand calcs showing why we could not space the bars and use the size he wanted to use, and the owner saw this as well. After a pow-wow they dropped the guy and went back to CMU. I am sure he made a promise he could not deliver, and I do believe that another engineer does it that way incorrectly (like 24" o.c. and #3 bars). Most of our plans reviewers will pass anything with a PE seal on it....

On a side note, in this instance, I have to think that the ACI max spacing seems a bit too strict for a single story, lightly loaded wall, when you can reinforce 8" CMU with #5 @ 48" o.c. , while I believe off the top of my head we were limited to 18" o.c. for concrete. I am sure it can be explained but it is odd that weaker CMU requires much less reinforcement in the vertical direction....

Andrew Kester, PE
Principal/Project Manager
ADK Structural Engineering, PLLC
1510 E Colonial Ave., Suite 301
Orlando, FL 32803

Re: seaint Digest for 2 Nov 2007

> Subject: footings look too big
> From: "Haan, Scott M POA" <Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil>
> To: <seaint@seaint.org>
>
> What would you say to a guy who says your footings look too big?

Realistically, you need to discuss why they believe that and educate them
about why these footings are they way that they are (design criteria,
scheduling, tradeoffs, etc.), or take your lumps for a materially
inefficient design. Otherwise, you risk a client being frustrated with
possible excessive costs in your designs which will affect word-of-mouth
advertising and future opportunities with this client.

Paul
--
Paul Ransom, P.Eng.
ph 905 639-9628
cell 905 802-3707
fax 905 639-3866
ad026@hwcn.org

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

Re: printers/ wood software

> From: "Andrew Kester, P.E." <akester@cfl.rr.com>

> The two A & E firms I have worked for have had HP4MVs for 8.5x11 and =
> 11x17, and they are simply workhorses. I don't remember them having much =
> more problems then paper jambs. And they can go all day it seems, and =
> are supposedly pretty skimpy on the toner powder so your cost per sheet =
> is low. So I bought one for our office, a factory refurbished one off of =
> E-bay with a full one year warranty. So far so good, and it is great for =
> check sets, detail checks, and 11x17 finals. We happen to have a print =
> shop on the first floor of our building so this is all we need.

The HP 4V/4MV, like a lot of the HP machines, just keep on going. My 4MV has
a noisy fan that I'll get around to replacing one day.

Picked it up, used, for $300 and have spent many times that much in toner.
Getting toner cartridges is becoming a chore and they are expensive.

It'll be tough to say good-bye to an old friend when the time comes.

Paul
--
Paul Ransom, P.Eng.
ph 905 639-9628
cell 905 802-3707
fax 905 639-3866
ad026@hwcn.org

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

Re: footings look too big

> Subject: footings look too big
> From: "Haan, Scott M POA" <Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil>
> To: <seaint@seaint.org>
>
> What would you say to a guy who says your footings look too big?

Stand back a bit.

Paul
--
Paul Ransom, P.Eng.
ph 905 639-9628
cell 905 802-3707
fax 905 639-3866
ad026@hwcn.org

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

Re: OT- Scanners

> From: "Gautam Manandhar" <Gautam_Manandhar@ci.richmond.ca.us>

> I am looking to buy a document scanner in order to scan all my
> calculations into a pdf format so I can free up shelf space. I am
> looking at the following three scanners (with 50 page automatic feed)
> available at the local Frys store:
> =20
> Xerox Documate 510
> HP Scanjet 7650
> Microtek Scanmaker 5950 Pro
> =20
> I am interested in hearing about your experience (there is some
> discussion of the Xerox Documate 510 on the CNET site) with any of the
> above three scanners or any other automatic feed scanners you may be
> using. =20
> =20
> Thank you all in advance.

IMO, hands down, I can't say enough about this product:

FUJITSU SCANSNAP, $450 +/- (Windows or Macintosh)

Sheetfed (not flatbed), SINGLE-PASS DUPLEX, colour detect, auto blank page
detect, auto-deskew, page misfeed detect, page size detect, Adobe Acrobat
v8.0 (full package, not the reader), Document management software (Windows),
JPG or PDF direct with adjustable file compression and resolution.
Footprint the size of an ink-jet printer.
Not networkable. USB.

Plug it in, install the CD software. Archive your paper. Done.
The value of Adobe Acrobat is almost worth the cost.

For some reason it is not carried on the shelf in many office supply stores
with the other (multi-function, flatbed) scanners.

You can buy older models still in inventory for less, online.

Fujitsu also has an 11x17 similar scanner (fi-4350?) for about $3000 (big
leap) but you will spend BIG bucks to get the same functionality with a
digital copier with the same capability. Even that comes with some
inconveniences.

Paul
--
Paul Ransom, P.Eng.
ph 905 639-9628
cell 905 802-3707
fax 905 639-3866
ad026@hwcn.org

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

RE: footings look too big

Scott,

Maybe they are!! It's pretty easy to go back and check the calcs. If your sizes are correct, great, and if they are off substantially, I would swallow a little pride and change them.

Larry Hauer S.E.

> Subject: footings look too big
> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 15:34:15 -0800
> From: Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil
> To: seaint@seaint.org
>
> What would you say to a guy who says your footings look too big?
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

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

Friday, November 2, 2007

RE: footings look too big

Or you could just say "you just denigrate the size of other engineer's
footings to mask your own insecurities".

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Emoto [mailto:jason.emoto@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:27 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: footings look too big

It depends on the context. It might be a harmless casual remark. But
judging from your reaction, maybe a friendly reminder of the engineering code
of ethics would be in order. The U.S. engineering profession (ASCE, NSPE,
etc.) has guidelines about reviewing and critiquing other engineers'
work.

Jason Emoto

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 1:48 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: footings look too big

What if it is an engineer who didn't look at your calcs? It was actually
someone asked another structural engineer what he thought about my footings.
The engineer said "he told the guy he thought my footings looked big."

I was thinking about either responding "that's not the only thing" or putting
him in the anaconda choke I've been seeing recently on ultimate fighting.

Only a structural engineer would be sensitive someone thinking his footings
are too big.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Topete [mailto:dtopete@gfdseng.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:38 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: footings look too big

"let me see your sheepskin from XYZ university? No? Then, how about an SE
or GE or even a PE license? If you have none of these, then show me a letter
saying you'll assume liability when the footings fail... until then..."

Good luck to you Scott.

David A. Topete, SE

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:34 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: footings look too big

What would you say to a guy who says your footings look too big?

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

RE: footings look too big

It depends on the context. It might be a harmless casual remark. But
judging from your reaction, maybe a friendly reminder of the engineering
code of ethics would be in order. The U.S. engineering profession (ASCE,
NSPE, etc.) has guidelines about reviewing and critiquing other engineers'
work.

Jason Emoto

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 1:48 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: footings look too big

I was thinking about either responding "that's not the only thing" or
putting him in the anaconda choke I've been seeing recently on ultimate
fighting.

Only a structural engineer would be sensitive someone thinking his footings
are too big.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Topete [mailto:dtopete@gfdseng.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:38 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: footings look too big

"let me see your sheepskin from XYZ university? No? Then, how about an SE
or GE or even a PE license? If you have none of these, then show me a
letter saying you'll assume liability when the footings fail... until
then..."

Good luck to you Scott.

David A. Topete, SE

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:34 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: footings look too big

What would you say to a guy who says your footings look too big?

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

RE: footings look too big

I usually answer with, "Lemme ask you a question. How come you never ask me
if a structural component looks too small?"

-DB

-----Original Message-----
From: David Topete [mailto:dtopete@gfdseng.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:53 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: footings look too big

Well, I would hope he didn't say you weren't conservative with your footing
design. It sounds like an owner who's trying to value engineer the
foundation, and save a few bucks on concrete...

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:48 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: footings look too big

I was thinking about either responding "that's not the only thing" or
putting
him in the anaconda choke I've been seeing recently on ultimate fighting.

Only a structural engineer would be sensitive someone thinking his footings
are too big.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Topete [mailto:dtopete@gfdseng.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:38 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: footings look too big

"let me see your sheepskin from XYZ university? No? Then, how about an SE
or GE or even a PE license? If you have none of these, then show me a
letter
saying you'll assume liability when the footings fail... until then..."

Good luck to you Scott.

David A. Topete, SE

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:34 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: footings look too big

What would you say to a guy who says your footings look too big?

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

RE: footings look too big

Well, I would hope he didn't say you weren't conservative with your footing
design. It sounds like an owner who's trying to value engineer the
foundation, and save a few bucks on concrete...

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:48 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: footings look too big

I was thinking about either responding "that's not the only thing" or
putting
him in the anaconda choke I've been seeing recently on ultimate fighting.

Only a structural engineer would be sensitive someone thinking his footings
are too big.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Topete [mailto:dtopete@gfdseng.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:38 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: footings look too big

"let me see your sheepskin from XYZ university? No? Then, how about an SE
or GE or even a PE license? If you have none of these, then show me a
letter
saying you'll assume liability when the footings fail... until then..."

Good luck to you Scott.

David A. Topete, SE

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:34 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: footings look too big

What would you say to a guy who says your footings look too big?

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

RE: footings look too big

I was thinking about either responding "that's not the only thing" or putting
him in the anaconda choke I've been seeing recently on ultimate fighting.

Only a structural engineer would be sensitive someone thinking his footings
are too big.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Topete [mailto:dtopete@gfdseng.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:38 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: footings look too big

Good luck to you Scott.

David A. Topete, SE

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:34 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: footings look too big

What would you say to a guy who says your footings look too big?

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

RE: footings look too big

"let me see your sheepskin from XYZ university? No? Then, how about an SE
or GE or even a PE license? If you have none of these, then show me a
letter saying you'll assume liability when the footings fail... until
then..."

Good luck to you Scott.

David A. Topete, SE

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:34 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: footings look too big

What would you say to a guy who says your footings look too big?

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

footings look too big

What would you say to a guy who says your footings look too big?

RE: Mathcad - Converting Excel to Mathcad: Best Practices

Here is an article regarding converting Excel to Mathcad:

http://www.mathcad.com/support/item/06jan_es.asp

Suresh Acharya, S.E.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William.Sherman@CH2M.com [mailto:William.Sherman@CH2M.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 12:00 PM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Mathcad
>
>
> The formulas in Excel won't convert but I believe that you
> can either have a dynamic link to an external Excel
> spreadsheet or you can just import the numerical values into
> a table. I've read about it but haven't tried it myself.
>
> Bill Sherman
> CH2M HILL / DEN
> 720-286-2792
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Acharya, Suresh [mailto:Suresh.Acharya@ci.concord.ca.us]
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 12:11 PM
> To: 'seaint@seaint.org'
> Subject: RE: Mathcad
>
> Did you mean 'importing' Excel spreadsheet using OLE (Object
> Linking and Embedding), or converting Excel spreadsheet to
> native Mathcad spreadsheet.
>
> Suresh Acharya, S.E.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William.Sherman@CH2M.com [mailto:William.Sherman@CH2M.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:48 AM
> > To: seaint@seaint.org
> > Subject: RE: Mathcad
> >
> >
> > MathCAD worksheets can import Excel spreadsheets - there should be a
> > help file on their website or in their Help files to explain this.
> > There are 2 or 3 options, depending upon your intent for file
> > interaction.
> >
> > Bill Sherman
> > CH2M HILL / DEN
> > 720-286-2792
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Acharya, Suresh [mailto:Suresh.Acharya@ci.concord.ca.us]
> > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:43 AM
> > To: 'seaint@seaint.org'
> > Subject: RE: Mathcad
> >
> > Has anybody used MathCAD APIs to customize MathCAD spreadsheets?
> >
> > As of the previous versions, I found the MathCAD APIs available to
> > developers were very my much limited and severely
> restricted. MathCAD
> > spreadsheet, as it is, is great, but not adequate to do all sort of
> > structural calculations.
> >
> > I doubt MathCAD and Excel talk to each other at all.
> >
> > Suresh Acharya, S.E.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alex C. Nacionales [mailto:anacionales@insightts.net]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 7:42 PM
> > > To: seaint@seaint.org
> > > Subject: Re: Mathcad
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, Mathcad can use data files. Mathcad can load a data file like
> > > axial loads and moments of a structure taken from an
> > analysis program
> > > then design the footings,columns using these data and formulas
> > > created in Mathcad.
> > >
> > > Alex Nacionales
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Gautam Manandhar" <Gautam_Manandhar@ci.richmond.ca.us>
> > > To: <seaint@seaint.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:24 AM
> > > Subject: RE: Mathcad
> > >
> > >
> > > Can anyone discuss the ease of ( if possible) of importing
> > data files
> > > and worksheets from Excel.
> > >
> > > gautam
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:07 PM
> > > To: seaint@seaint.org
> > > Subject: RE: Mathcad vs. Matlab
> > >
> > > I would say MathCAD is likely more useful...unless you are doing
> > > stiffness method by hand and need to do manipulation of large
> > > matricies and lots of matrix math. MathCAD allows for graphical
> > > calculation sheets (i.e. you can create functional forumula
> > that are
> > > visible). This of Excel to some degree except all the
> forumlas are
> > > visable and function...not hidden in cells). Matlab is
> > primarily aimed
> >
> > > at doing serious matix math, but can do "regular" math
> too...but is
> > > not as graphical (i.e. see the formulas) as MathCAD...at
> least the
> > > last time I used it.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Scott
> > > Adrian, MI
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan@poa02.usace.army.mil]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:24 PM
> > > To: seaint@seaint.org
> > > Subject: Mathcad vs. Matlab
> > >
> > >
> > > Is Mathcad or Matlab more useful for structural engineering? I
> > > haven't used either, what is the difference?
> > >
> > > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > > * 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
> > > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> > >
> > > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > > * 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:
> > > *
> > > *

> > > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> > >
> >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > * 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:
> > *
> > *

> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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:
> *
> *

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

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

Re: Precast manhole design

In a message dated 11/2/07 1:44:44 PM, mark@rstavares.com writes:

I'm sorry. "Manhole" is politically incorrect. What you want is
"personhole."

What, discriminate against non-human beings?! "Beinghole!"

Ralph

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

RE: Precast manhole design

I'm sorry. "Manhole" is politically incorrect. What you want is
"personhole."

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: Sanjay Verma [mailto:sverma@p-and-i.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:56 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Precast manhole design
>
> I haven't seen Precast manhole Mfr ever designing for earth
> pressure seismic increment even if they are large enough to
> experience it.
>
>
> Please opine what professionals thinks?
>
> Best Regards,
> Sanjay Kumar Verma, P.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:
> *
> *

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

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

RE: Earthquake-Proof Design

Don,

I think what some are trying to say is that nothing is "earthquake proof" just different ways of achieving "earthquake resistance". If you are doing just a "code design" then anything allowed by the code will achieve a "life safety" seismic performance level no matter what material or structural system you choose. It is probably more a matter of economics and how complex a system you want to use. For high seismic areas the code prohibits certain structural systems or only allows them to a certain height limit.

Plywood/stud shearwalls have performed very well for one and two story structures. If you want a brute force resistance system you could go with 12 inch thick concrete shear walls. If you are looking at steel, a special concentric braced frame would do nicely but so would a buckling restrained bracing system. No reason you could not go with a base isolation system but you can imagine the cost and time of engineering not to mention the cost and time of construction and supply of materials.

From a layout standpoint you want as square, symmetrical, and boxy a structure as possible. Just go through the code "irregularity" section and make sure you do not have any.

Thomas Hunt, S.E.
Fluor

"Donald Bruckman" <bruckmandesign@verizon.net>
11/02/2007 10:22 AM
Please respond to seaint

To	<seaint@seaint.org>
cc
Subject	RE: Earthquake-Proof Design

I am, but I'm not an idiot, even if I did (literally) stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. <g>

Anyway, see, now I already have a vote from Bob for steel braced frames and a dynamic analysis.
Do I have any takers for concrete? Too rigid?
How about more rigid masonry shear walls with wood diaphragms.

From: Neil Moore [mailto:nma@omsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:50 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Earthquake-Proof Design

Sorry. I kind of guessed that you might be an architect.

Neil

At 09:39 AM 11/2/2007, you wrote:

Gee whiz….really? What a great idea…..Why didn't I think of that?
Thanks for the input Neil….Unfortunately, that would give me exactly ONE opinion and as much as I respect the engineer I generally use, that wasn't the point of the post. I wanted to get a discussion going about more general strategies. I guess we could just go back to the bio-diesel discussion if you'd prefer...

-DB

From: Neil Moore [ mailto:nma@omsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:59 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Earthquake-Proof Design

Hire a local structural engineer and a local geologist.

Neil Moore, SE, SECB

At 08:52 AM 11/2/2007, you wrote:

Listen, you clowns…I leave town for one day and come back to 93 messages about just about everything BUT engineering. So, either I start a thread lambasting Prof. Astenah's cheesy, stinkin' football team and how we Trojans will be up there soon to kick Bear, OR I will start a new thread about EQ design.

I'll start with that and see if it morphs into a football board.

I have a client that bought a piece of land in North LA County. I've been to the site and it's a really pretty, sort of bucolic little area full of chaparral and butterflies. Unfortunately, it also has, about a 3 wood away, the grinding fury of two continental tectonic plates sliding by each other. I think they call it The San Andreas Fault.

So, after the preliminary discussion wherein I say, "There is no such thing as an earthquake-proof building…blah blah blah…", we got serious and he and I agreed that I would try to get as close as I could by affecting the design in such a way that the threat could be minimized.

So, with that in mind, I told him, for instance: Tall building? Not so much….Irregular building with re-entrant corners….not so much….Now, more broadly, the question for the board:

What are the other various strategies that would minimize the risk?

--DB

------------------------------------------------------------ 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.   ------------------------------------------------------------

RE: Earthquake-Proof Design

To make it fully earthquake proof, including non-structural damage, you would need to limit yourself to the elastic range. This means an R of 1.

I am a Trojan, too. We had too many injuries this year. We may have a chance against Cal considering the nosedive they took. But Az and UCLA will be tough. I have grown philosophical about the whole thing. Maybe next year!<g>

Fight on!

Figueroa Tech, Class of '75

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: Donald Bruckman [mailto:bruckmandesign@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:53 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Earthquake-Proof Design

Listen, you clowns…I leave town for one day and come back to 93 messages about just about everything BUT engineering. So, either I start a thread lambasting Prof. Astenah’s cheesy, stinkin’ football team and how we Trojans will be up there soon to kick Bear, OR I will start a new thread about EQ design.

I’ll start with that and see if it morphs into a football board.

I have a client that bought a piece of land in North LA County. I’ve been to the site and it’s a really pretty, sort of bucolic little area full of chaparral and butterflies. Unfortunately, it also has, about a 3 wood away, the grinding fury of two continental tectonic plates sliding by each other. I think they call it The San Andreas Fault.

So, after the preliminary discussion wherein I say, “There is no such thing as an earthquake-proof building…blah blah blah…”, we got serious and he and I agreed that I would try to get as close as I could by affecting the design in such a way that the threat could be minimized.

So, with that in mind, I told him, for instance: Tall building? Not so much….Irregular building with re-entrant corners….not so much….Now, more broadly, the question for the board:

What are the other various strategies that would minimize the risk?

--DB

RE: Earthquake-Proof Design

BTW, as the Architect, “no preference” is what I’m waiting to hear. What I’m trying to do here is discover if I should even worry about this given the proximity and scale of the danger or just merrily design away with prudent regard for the danger and then just dump it into the lap of the SE and tell him to shut up and, oh, BTW, you need to finish the work by Tuesday (as usual)…

From: Donald Bruckman [mailto:bruckmandesign@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 1:04 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Earthquake-Proof Design

So, if I offered up various design options, you wouldn’t lean one way or the other?

Is this a purely calc and detail oriented discussion?

Is there is no evidence that, for instance, if you were presented a plywood shear wall solution calc’d to withstand the same load as a steel Xbrace solution, that you would have no preference?

From: Bill Allen [mailto:T.W.Allen@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 10:55 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Earthquake-Proof Design

IOW, there is no such thing as “earthquake-proof”.

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.

ALLEN DESIGNS

Consulting Structural Engineers
V (949) 248-8588 • F(949) 209-2509

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Gordin [mailto:sgordin@sgeconsulting.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 10:46 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Earthquake-Proof Design

Don,

Single- or two story "spread" conventional residential buildings generally perform well.
However, in the close proximity to a dangerous fault all bets are off.
Assume, that the fault fissure surfaces right under the house (I saw it myself after Northridge), and then there is a 12" slip (IIRC, 20' slips were recored along San Andreas in 1906).

IMHO, any money cannot really minimize risk in this situation. Put a BIG disclamer on your plans...
You may also suggest your client to read the property owner's manual "Peace of Mind in Earthquake Country" by Peter Yanev. It makes nice (kinda) reading, and not only for lay people.

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

On 11/2/07, Donald Bruckman < bruckmandesign@verizon.net> wrote:

Listen, you clowns…I leave town for one day and come back to 93 messages about just about everything BUT engineering. So, either I start a thread lambasting Prof. Astenah's cheesy, stinkin' football team and how we Trojans will be up there soon to kick Bear, OR I will start a new thread about EQ design.

I'll start with that and see if it morphs into a football board.

I have a client that bought a piece of land in North LA County. I've been to the site and it's a really pretty, sort of bucolic little area full of chaparral and butterflies. Unfortunately, it also has, about a 3 wood away, the grinding fury of two continental tectonic plates sliding by each other. I think they call it The San Andreas Fault.

So, after the preliminary discussion wherein I say, "There is no such thing as an earthquake-proof building…blah blah blah…", we got serious and he and I agreed that I would try to get as close as I could by affecting the design in such a way that the threat could be minimized.

So, with that in mind, I told him, for instance: Tall building? Not so much….Irregular building with re-entrant corners….not so much….Now, more broadly, the question for the board:

What are the other various strategies that would minimize the risk?

--DB