Structural Engineering: 2007-11-25

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Re: HSS welds & HSS in general

Additionally, the face of the HSS may not be "flat" (tolerances) which
raises the sides of the perpendicular member further. Worst, there are
tolerance variations between Tube and HSS for dimension, square, thickness
and radius. You have to be clear on what is being used.

I always show flare bevel instead of fillet. In my opinion, backing bar or
other special requirements to make a flare bevel work in this instance are
the responsibility of the fabricator, their weld engineer and in-house weld
processes. If they find that they can't fit it up to suit my detail,
including dressing the end, they need to call me. They should be aware of
potential problems when estimating work on HSS and qualify their quotes if
they don't have complete details.

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

> From: "Joseph R. Grill" <jrgrill@cableone.net>
>
> Just a quick question (or point of discussion).....On the side of the =
> flair groove weld, check with the corner radius of the tube that is =
> being welded to. In larger sections the corner radius might be quite =
> large. If the wall thickness of the perpendicular tube is small there =
> may not even be contact. Not sure, but I seem to remember a situation I =
> had like this several years ago. had nothing to do with welds, but =
> actual dimensions of the tube and corners may be a consideration. Might =
> need backing bars at the groove weld sides. check into it though, =
> Saturday night after cocktails and dinner my memory is a bit fuzzy.
> Joe Grill

>> Jerry Coombs wrote:
>> For those of you that do a lot of steel work:
>> Say you have an HSS square shape end butting to the side of another of
>> the same size. Say you want to weld it all around (never mind why).
>> Do you show two weld symbols, one for fillet weld both sides and one
>> for flare bevel both sides? Or do you show one symbol for fillet weld
>> all around, knowing full well it'll get done properly. one symbol
>> makes for a much cleaner detail. In this case, weld stress is not a
>> concern.
>> jdc

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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, November 30, 2007

Re: HSS welds & HSS in general

Just a quick question (or point of discussion).....On the side of the flair groove weld, check with the corner radius of the tube that is being welded to. In larger sections the corner radius might be quite large. If the wall thickness of the perpendicular tube is small there may not even be contact. Not sure, but I seem to remember a situation I had like this several years ago. had nothing to do with welds, but actual dimensions of the tube and corners may be a consideration. Might need backing bars at the groove weld sides. check into it though, Saturday night after cocktails and dinner my memory is a bit fuzzy.

Joe Grill

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

From: Andrew Kester, P.E.

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 1:36 PM

Subject: re: HSS welds & HSS in general

Jerry,

I agree with our colleague Conrad from Down Under on all accounts. Technically that is a flare groove weld where you are welding to the radii of the HSS. But many times we don't technically call out the welds exact where it is more of a flare than a standard groove, or a groove and not a fillet, etc etc, but steel fabricators to me are generally top notch compared to other trades and they know we mean or call us or clarify in shop dwgs. They "getter done". Of course if this is a critical connection, we should all pay close attention and make sure we are specifying exactly what we need. And we should all remember that welding, especially in the field, is very expensive and just throwing unnecessary welds on there can be costly.

I know you said "nevermind" why you would want to do this, but if this is a theoretical question you have your answers, so allow me to pontificate on a Friday. If you have low weld stress, you probably don't need the side welds (the flare grooves), you can get enough out of the fillets on the flat faces of the HSS. Also, beware I think there are some reductions or warnings per AISC when welding to the corner of the HSS because of fatigue stresses at the corners where they bent the plate to form the tube, but that is off the top of my head and forgive me if my steel mechanics-speak is off.

I did a moveable rack for an industrial client all out of HSS members, and we needed full welds all around. I simply downsized the members framing into the faces of the other HSS so I could get a nice and easy fillet weld all around (easy for me to say).

Other options are side plates that sandwich the two members and then you get fillet welds all over the place, or a knife plate in the center if you have just shear and need to conceal the connection. I find these two options work great for diagonal braces or odd angles. If your tubes are perpendicular a shelf angle bottom and/or top works well and allows to shop weld in the angles on the vertical member so they have something to set the horiz member on in the field before welding... At the risk of sounding like a complete structural geek, HSS members are my favorite structural section since they make great columns, beams, braces, misc members, exposed architectural members, etc. and are great unbraced in bending and in axial compression. And you cannot forget about them in torsion! I should get a kickback for this stuff :)

Have a good weekend all.

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

RE: underground house

Aren’t they an endangered species? Seriously, I just heard a thing on the radio about the steelhead in LA River and how much money they are about to spend to try to replenish them and here you go, trotting down to the river for dinner?

From: Richard L. Hess [mailto:RLHess@HessEng.com]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 1:47 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: underground house

Bill,

I should have known that if I said that we would get our first rain and that's what I woke up to this morning.

I am going to get my steelhead rod and go down to the banks of the Los Angeles River for some action after work.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen [mailto:t.w.allen@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:56 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: underground house

Puleese, Richard.

Waterproofing isn’t a structural engineer’s responsibility unless there is no architect on the job.

You need to stop volunteering us for more responsibility than we already have.

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard L. Hess [mailto:RLHess@HessEng.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:48 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: underground house

Ralph,

Have you seen the Stata Center? And, do you know of anything Gehry has done recently that was not screwed up? And if a structural engineer doesn't know how to detail a building so it will be waterproof he/she should stick to southern California where it hasn't rained for over two years.

Richard Hess (living in So. Cal. but educated elsewhere)

RE: underground house

Bill,

I should have known that if I said that we would get our first rain and that's what I woke up to this morning.

I am going to get my steelhead rod and go down to the banks of the Los Angeles River for some action after work.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen [mailto:t.w.allen@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:56 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: underground house

Puleese, Richard.

Waterproofing isn’t a structural engineer’s responsibility unless there is no architect on the job.

You need to stop volunteering us for more responsibility than we already have.

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard L. Hess [mailto:RLHess@HessEng.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:48 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: underground house

Ralph,

Have you seen the Stata Center? And, do you know of anything Gehry has done recently that was not screwed up? And if a structural engineer doesn't know how to detail a building so it will be waterproof he/she should stick to southern California where it hasn't rained for over two years.

Richard Hess (living in So. Cal. but educated elsewhere)

Prestressing strands 1958...

List:

What was the typical Fy for prestessing strands in 1958?

We’re doing some work at O’Hare and have the drawings, but they lack a lot of info.

Like Fy, for example.

Thanks!

David L. Fisher SE PE

Senior Director

The Fisher Companies Ltd. - Cayman

372 West Ontario Chicago 60610

75 Fort Street Georgetown Grand Cayman BWI

319 A Street Boston 02210

312.573.1701

312.573.1726 facsimile

312.622.0409 mobile

www.ccgch.com

www.fpse.com

re: waterproofing, etc

I agree with Chuck and Richard. It does not matter whose responsibility is technically, if your name is on the drawings you can get sued where there are problems, no matter what they are. And waterproofing or infiltration issues can cause lots of structural problems like reinforcement corrosion, concrete and masonry degradation, and where Chris and I are- MOLD. There are lawyers who specialize in suing design professionals due to building flashing, envelope, roofing and other waterproofing issues that have resulted in MOLD and also structural degradation from wood rot on down the line.

I too have done a lot of forensic work in Florida and water intrusion is a huge problem, especially in residential construction, as these are not normally given as much attention as they are in commercial construction (in my experience).

I would highly reccomend having an architect or waterproofing specialist company, like a specialy contractor who does coatings or other types of waterproofings, brought in from the begining of this project. From what I understand a lot of these guys can offer some serious warranties. And maybe even get a release from the owner for waterproofing issues from the begining. The one thing you can do to help is control the cracks in the slabs, walls and roof that may allow water to enter and work closely with the architect (if there is one) on the details at those junctions.

We don't have basements in general here in FL because of our high water table, so that may be an issue to find a good contractor. Also Chris, be aware of water table and geotechnical issues... All my friends and relatives up north with basements, and from what I remember as a kid in WI, had moisture intrusion issues in their basements to downright flooding. I am sure other engineers on this list have lots of experience in this area.

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

re: HSS welds & HSS in general

Jerry,

I agree with our colleague Conrad from Down Under on all accounts. Technically that is a flare groove weld where you are welding to the radii of the HSS. But many times we don't technically call out the welds exact where it is more of a flare than a standard groove, or a groove and not a fillet, etc etc, but steel fabricators to me are generally top notch compared to other trades and they know we mean or call us or clarify in shop dwgs. They "getter done". Of course if this is a critical connection, we should all pay close attention and make sure we are specifying exactly what we need. And we should all remember that welding, especially in the field, is very expensive and just throwing unnecessary welds on there can be costly.

I know you said "nevermind" why you would want to do this, but if this is a theoretical question you have your answers, so allow me to pontificate on a Friday. If you have low weld stress, you probably don't need the side welds (the flare grooves), you can get enough out of the fillets on the flat faces of the HSS. Also, beware I think there are some reductions or warnings per AISC when welding to the corner of the HSS because of fatigue stresses at the corners where they bent the plate to form the tube, but that is off the top of my head and forgive me if my steel mechanics-speak is off.

I did a moveable rack for an industrial client all out of HSS members, and we needed full welds all around. I simply downsized the members framing into the faces of the other HSS so I could get a nice and easy fillet weld all around (easy for me to say).

Other options are side plates that sandwich the two members and then you get fillet welds all over the place, or a knife plate in the center if you have just shear and need to conceal the connection. I find these two options work great for diagonal braces or odd angles. If your tubes are perpendicular a shelf angle bottom and/or top works well and allows to shop weld in the angles on the vertical member so they have something to set the horiz member on in the field before welding... At the risk of sounding like a complete structural geek, HSS members are my favorite structural section since they make great columns, beams, braces, misc members, exposed architectural members, etc. and are great unbraced in bending and in axial compression. And you cannot forget about them in torsion! I should get a kickback for this stuff :)

Have a good weekend all.

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

RE: underground house

I worked on I a job where we put two 1/2" Injecto tubes in the cold joints
of a 12' high basement retaining wall. One tube was pressure injected with
urethane sealant, the other one was left empty in case a leak ever showed up
it would be re injected. We had some 6 and 8" pipes servicing a spa going
through the wall and these were sealed with link seal
http://www.linkseal.com/

All this was spec'd by the waterproofing
consultant.

-----Original Message-----
From: Garner, Robert [mailto:rgarner@moffattnichol.com]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:53 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: underground house

Just a couple of thoughts:

Good waterproofing membranes of course.
Free-draining backfill and redundant underdrains. You can even run the
separate underdrains to an inlet box and take a peek in there every so often
to see which underdrain is passing water (like we use in reservoirs to know
where the seepage is).
A clay layer under the topsoil over the structure to route water away from
the structure footprint. Very good to excellant ventilation of the place -
will likely have to be forced air ventilation.
I like underground stuff.

Bob Garner, S.E.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Utzman [mailto:chuckuc@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:37 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: underground house

> The structural analysis part is easy - it's just loads and
> resistances. I would probably require two things up front - a solid
> geotechnical report with at least 6-7 borings, and a contractual
> requirement that the filling operations be done with a licensed
> geotechnical engineering firm doing continuous testing. Poor
> compaction can invalidate your anticipated loads.
>
> Sounds like a fun project. It's going to be a lot of work - I hope you

> didn't underbid it.
>
> Jordan
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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 discontinuities are the critical part of the waterproofing design.
Once you've clear detailed every component, arrange for pre-construction

meetings with everyone & make sure there is one person on the G.C.'s crew
who will supervise the entire process (you'll need to walk him through the
details, the workers won't look at, or understand, your drawings). You are
going to have to make daily inspections of every single w.p.
membrane/corner/penetration installation. Then you cross your fingers &
hopes the statute of limitations runs out before the leaks start--they will
be a bitch to repair $$$.
I'm happy to make informal recommendations to the arch./G.C./owner on
waterproofing, but my contract is crystal clear that I will assume no
responsibility for waterproofing or ventilation issues. Good luck with
this--you will need it. This is not like a test in school, or even
structural engineering--waterproofing must be perfect, 95% was an A in
school, here its a lawsuit.
Chuck Utzman, PE

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

RE: underground house

Just a couple of thoughts:

Good waterproofing membranes of course.
Free-draining backfill and redundant underdrains. You can even run the
separate underdrains to an inlet box and take a peek in there every so
often to see which underdrain is passing water (like we use in
reservoirs to know where the seepage is).
A clay layer under the topsoil over the structure to route water away
from the structure footprint. Very good to excellant ventilation of the
place - will likely have to be forced air ventilation.
I like underground stuff.

Bob Garner, S.E.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Utzman [mailto:chuckuc@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 10:37 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: underground house

the discontinuities are the critical part of the waterproofing design.
Once you've clear detailed every component, arrange for pre-construction

meetings with everyone & make sure there is one person on the G.C.'s
crew who will supervise the entire process (you'll need to walk him
through the details, the workers won't look at, or understand, your
drawings). You are going to have to make daily inspections of every
single w.p. membrane/corner/penetration installation. Then you cross
your fingers & hopes the statute of limitations runs out before the
leaks start--they will be a bitch to repair $$$.
I'm happy to make informal recommendations to the arch./G.C./owner on
waterproofing, but my contract is crystal clear that I will assume no
responsibility for waterproofing or ventilation issues. Good luck with
this--you will need it. This is not like a test in school, or even
structural engineering--waterproofing must be perfect, 95% was an A in
school, here its a lawsuit.
Chuck Utzman, PE

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

Re: underground house

Jordan Truesdell, PE wrote:
> Back to the original post - I would rather cut off my left leg than
> put my seal on an all-underground structure made of masonry. The
> question isn't if the structure will leak, but when. You're on the
> right path looking for books to see how others have done the assembly.
> The structural analysis part is easy - it's just loads and
> resistances. I would probably require two things up front - a solid
> geotechnical report with at least 6-7 borings, and a contractual
> requirement that the filling operations be done with a licensed
> geotechnical engineering firm doing continuous testing. Poor
> compaction can invalidate your anticipated loads.
>
> Sounds like a fun project. It's going to be a lot of work - I hope you
> didn't underbid it.
>
> Jordan
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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 structural part is simple compared to the waterproofing. Personally
I wouldn't do anything other than reinforced concrete with a Xypex
admixture for the structure.
Detailing the cross-sections is simple, but the isometric details at all
the discontinuities are the critical part of the waterproofing design.
Once you've clear detailed every component, arrange for pre-construction
meetings with everyone & make sure there is one person on the G.C.'s
crew who will supervise the entire process (you'll need to walk him
through the details, the workers won't look at, or understand, your
drawings). You are going to have to make daily inspections of every
single w.p. membrane/corner/penetration installation. Then you cross
your fingers & hopes the statute of limitations runs out before the
leaks start--they will be a bitch to repair $$$.
I'm happy to make informal recommendations to the arch./G.C./owner on
waterproofing, but my contract is crystal clear that I will assume no
responsibility for waterproofing or ventilation issues. Good luck with
this--you will need it. This is not like a test in school, or even
structural engineering--waterproofing must be perfect, 95% was an A in
school, here its a lawsuit.
Chuck Utzman, PE

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

Re: underground house

Back to the original post - I would rather cut off my left leg than put
my seal on an all-underground structure made of masonry. The question
isn't if the structure will leak, but when. You're on the right path
looking for books to see how others have done the assembly. The
structural analysis part is easy - it's just loads and resistances. I
would probably require two things up front - a solid geotechnical report
with at least 6-7 borings, and a contractual requirement that the
filling operations be done with a licensed geotechnical engineering firm
doing continuous testing. Poor compaction can invalidate your
anticipated loads.

Sounds like a fun project. It's going to be a lot of work - I hope you
didn't underbid it.

Jordan

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

Re: weld symbols

Jerry.
In addition to the reply by Tom Hunt, you should consider whether some
fabricator or estimator will claim that you misled them. And perhaps on
seeing the weld symbols, you may want to rethink your member selection.
It is also surprising the number of detailers who will go along with the
incorrect weld symbol.
Gary

Jerry Coombs wrote:
> For those of you that do a lot of steel work:
> Say you have an HSS square shape end butting to the side of another of
> the same size. Say you want to weld it all around (never mind why).
> Do you show two weld symbols, one for fillet weld both sides and one
> for flare bevel both sides? Or do you show one symbol for fillet weld
> all around, knowing full well it'll get done properly. one symbol
> makes for a much cleaner detail. In this case, weld stress is not a
> concern.
> jdc

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

Thursday, November 29, 2007

RE: weld symbols

Fillet weld both sides? As far as I am aware the symbols refer to the individual plate elements not sections. It would have to be a fairly large HSS to be able to fillet weld the internal profile.

I assume that fillet weld is adequate for your purpose, but two of the sides of the square HSS are against the edge of the abutting member and therefore no landing on which to form a fillet weld, these two sides being flare bevel welded. Four faces, two weld types. Either apply appropriate symbol to all four faces, or apply to two faces and provide a reference note (< Ref 1) explaining opposing faces of HSS have same weld/joint type. Also note the bend radii of the HSS will make forming a suitable weld difficult.

Compared to alternative situation of the entire profile being flare bevel welded and then reinforced with fillet weld, which would be one arrow with stacked symbols.

Down here for buildings we typically just provide notes, and leave it to the workshop detailer to specify the weld details. The theory being there is more than one way to achieve the same end result. (eg, fabricator chooses which edge preparation is more economical for them, and since they chose it, we expect them to get it right first time.) If strength is not a concern then there is usually some vague description about the structure being fully welded.

That is if the weld is not critical then leave it to the workshop detailer to choose the edge preparation.

Regards

Conrad Harrison

B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust

mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com

Adelaide

South Australia

From: Jerry Coombs [mailto:JCoombs@carollo.com]
Sent: Friday, 30 November 2007 05:19
To: SEA ListServe
Subject: weld symbols

For those of you that do a lot of steel work:

Say you have an HSS square shape end butting to the side of another of the same size. Say you want to weld it all around (never mind why). Do you show two weld symbols, one for fillet weld both sides and one for flare bevel both sides? Or do you show one symbol for fillet weld all around, knowing full well it'll get done properly. one symbol makes for a much cleaner detail. In this case, weld stress is not a concern.

jdc

RE: underground house [gettin' pretty OT now]

Richard, I agree with your elaboration. We need to provide structural
detailing that can be coordinated with the waterproofing. If the
waterproofing consultants come in after us, it is in our best interest to
have an understanding ahead of time of what these details may be so that we
don't spec details that are problematic. Your initial post may have lead
people to believe that we should be doing the waterproofing details?

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard L. Hess [mailto:RLHess@HessEng.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:07 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: underground house [gettin' pretty OT now]

One thing that I have learned in this business is that when there is a
problem with a building, everyone involved with it gets hit. And then we
are at the mercy of the lawyers. Wouldn't it be better to attempt to get
more control over the process in the first place? There is nothing wrong
with bringing a "specialist" or someone who knows more about it than we do.
In fact that is a very smart thing to do if you don't feel confident about
doing the detailing yourself. However to look the other way and pretend
that proper detailing of the structural envelope has nothing to do with us
is, in my opinion, not right. I figure that I have a responsibility to the
client to produce a structure that will stand up to the environment. Water,
ice, wind and fire can do as much damage to a building as an earthquake; so
are we supposed to pick what we want to design for and ignore the rest?
The next point you will bring up is that we are not paid enough to do all
the detailing that is necessary. Then why take the work? Is it because too
many engineers find it easier to work for peanuts doing the minimum rather
than learning how to get the respect that we are always saying we deserve as
professionals?
This is not meant to criticize anyone since I know all who are involved on
this list are concerned about doing good engineering for our clients. My
purpose is to open up the discussion as to why we do not have more control
over the design and construction process and how we can improve. I think
some fresh ideas will help.
Richard Hess

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Utzman [mailto:chuckuc@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:38 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: underground house [gettin' pretty OT now]

I spent almost 7 years doing forensic work. 95% of the litigations began
with waterproofing problems. Even if you think you know how to design a
waterproof system, the only way to be sure it gets constructed properly is
to stand there and watch it being done. Water is relentless & almost
perfect isn't good enough. IMHO waterproofing should be designed, inspected,
& warranted by someone who specializes in it. Believe me, you do not want
the liability.
Chuck Utzman, PE

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

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.8/1154 - Release Date: 11/27/2007
11:40 AM

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

RE: underground house [gettin' pretty OT now]

One thing that I have learned in this business is that when there is a problem with a building, everyone involved with it gets hit. And then we are at the mercy of the lawyers. Wouldn't it be better to attempt to get more control over the process in the first place? There is nothing wrong with bringing a "specialist" or someone who knows more about it than we do. In fact that is a very smart thing to do if you don't feel confident about doing the detailing yourself. However to look the other way and pretend that proper detailing of the structural envelope has nothing to do with us is, in my opinion, not right. I figure that I have a responsibility to the client to produce a structure that will stand up to the environment. Water, ice, wind and fire can do as much damage to a building as an earthquake; so are we supposed to pick what we want to design for and ignore the rest?
The next point you will bring up is that we are not paid enough to do all the detailing that is necessary. Then why take the work? Is it because too many engineers find it easier to work for peanuts doing the minimum rather than learning how to get the respect that we are always saying we deserve as professionals?
This is not meant to criticize anyone since I know all who are involved on this list are concerned about doing good engineering for our clients. My purpose is to open up the discussion as to why we do not have more control over the design and construction process and how we can improve. I think some fresh ideas will help.
Richard Hess

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Utzman [mailto:chuckuc@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:38 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: underground house [gettin' pretty OT now]

I spent almost 7 years doing forensic work. 95% of the litigations began
with waterproofing problems. Even if you think you know how to design a
waterproof system, the only way to be sure it gets constructed properly
is to stand there and watch it being done. Water is relentless & almost
perfect isn't good enough. IMHO waterproofing should be designed,
inspected, & warranted by someone who specializes in it. Believe me,
you do not want the liability.
Chuck Utzman, PE

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

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.8/1154 - Release Date: 11/27/2007 11:40 AM

Re: underground house [gettin' pretty OT now]

I spent almost 7 years doing forensic work. 95% of the litigations began
with waterproofing problems. Even if you think you know how to design a
waterproof system, the only way to be sure it gets constructed properly
is to stand there and watch it being done. Water is relentless & almost
perfect isn't good enough. IMHO waterproofing should be designed,
inspected, & warranted by someone who specializes in it. Believe me,
you do not want the liability.
Chuck Utzman, PE

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

RE: underground house

Puleese, Richard.

Waterproofing isn’t a structural engineer’s responsibility unless there is no architect on the job.

You need to stop volunteering us for more responsibility than we already have.

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard L. Hess [mailto:RLHess@HessEng.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:48 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: underground house

Ralph,

Have you seen the Stata Center? And, do you know of anything Gehry has done recently that was not screwed up? And if a structural engineer doesn't know how to detail a building so it will be waterproof he/she should stick to southern California where it hasn't rained for over two years.

Richard Hess (living in So. Cal. but educated elsewhere)

Re: underground house [gettin' pretty OT now]

Richard, in order:

Yup, couple months ago I stumbled onto it. Pretty impressive, although I wouldn't have wanted to be its S.E. Why do you ask?

Actually, this is the first project of his that I've heard had problems, other than Disney's having to be de-shined because it was reflecting the sun into nearby condos. I hear mostly raves about his work; I've loved most of his work for a long time (guess that gives it all away). It appears that his Bilbao museum "saved" and entire region, not only becoming a major art museum, but an international tourist destination. (I haven't seen it. :( )

I don't understand: Are you saying (it certainly sounds like it) that "if a structural engineer doesn't know how to detail a building so it will be waterproof he/she should stick to southern California where it hasn't rained for over two years." But most buildings are intended to last longer than two years, aren't they? And aren't architects the prime professional on most buildings? Okay, you're right, engineers designing industrial buildings *should* know something about that stuff, or hire someone who does, but I don't, and don't want to, and I don't do them. Someone said "Stick to what you know." :)

Just askin'

Ralph

In a message dated 11/29/07 2:00:12 PM, RLHess@HessEng.com writes:

Ralph,
Have you seen the Stata Center? And, do you know of anything Gehry has done recently that was not screwed up? And if a structural engineer doesn't know how to detail a building so it will be waterproof he/she should stick to southern California where it hasn't rained for over two years.
Richard Hess (living in So. Cal. but educated elsewhere)

-----Original Message-----
From: Rhkratzse@aol.com [mailto:Rhkratzse@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:57 AM
To: JCoombs@carollo.com; cbanbury@arkengineering.net; seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: underground house

I definitely agree with your "chiming in" comment, just so you don't take responsibility for the inevitable leaks. (Hey, if they couldn't build a leakless Stata Center at MIT for $300M, what chance does a little house engineer have?)

What do you mean by "It's" been done a lot? Are you referring to underground buildings, or to engineers specifying waterproofing, etc. (that I don't feel very expert in).

Ralph

In a message dated 11/29/07 9:51:17 AM, JCoombs@carollo.com writes:

It's actually been done a lot. And the SE should always be aware of the waterproofing used, and chime in if he believes it is insufficient.

>>> On 11/29/2007 at 9:00 AM, <Rhkratzse@aol.com> wrote:
Check out some of Malcolm Wells' books; he's been doing this since the 1970s. (I don't know if he's still active.) I'm curious: As an engineer why are you involved in the nonstructural aspects of the design, such as egress, waterproofing, ventilation--not to mention potential claustrophobia? Shouldn't the architect be handling them? I stay as far away from waterproofing design, and its potential liability issues, as I possibly can.

Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
Structural Engineer
Richmond CA USA

In a message dated 11/29/07 6:54:50 AM, cbanbury@arkengineering.net writes:

Hi all.
I've been asked to engineer a single story residence that will be built into the side of a hill and covered with earth. The walk-out front elevation will be exposed.
Can someone direct me to some resources that address issues of water proofing, ventilation, egress, etc? The exterior walls will probably be reinforced masonry but I'm not certain of the type and configuration of the roof system.
Thanks in advance.

Christopher Banbury, PE

**************************************
Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)

Re: R value UBC97

Assume the diagonal does carry gravity load, and use R=4.4 (bearing wall system, 4a) in the direction of the brace frame. 5.5 for the other direction (wood shear walls).

On Nov 29, 2007 11:16 AM, Jeff Smith < jeffsmith7@comcast.net> wrote:

I searched the archives and I am still unclear. I have a new wood framed residence that needs one story braced frames in one direction, mainly due to OT uplift requirements. The 2 vertical columns will take gravity load, but the top chord and single strut diagonal chord will not. What R should I use? We are submitting this in California before the end of the year.

Thanks,

Jeff

--
David Topete, SE

RE: underground house

Ralph,

Richard Hess (living in So. Cal. but educated elsewhere)

-----Original Message-----
From: Rhkratzse@aol.com [mailto:Rhkratzse@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:57 AM
To: JCoombs@carollo.com; cbanbury@arkengineering.net; seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: underground house

I definitely agree with your "chiming in" comment, just so you don't take responsibility for the inevitable leaks. (Hey, if they couldn't build a leakless Stata Center at MIT for $300M, what chance does a little house engineer have?)

What do you mean by "It's" been done a lot? Are you referring to underground buildings, or to engineers specifying waterproofing, etc. (that I don't feel very expert in).

Ralph

In a message dated 11/29/07 9:51:17 AM, JCoombs@carollo.com writes:

It's actually been done a lot. And the SE should always be aware of the waterproofing used, and chime in if he believes it is insufficient.

>>> On 11/29/2007 at 9:00 AM, <Rhkratzse@aol.com> wrote:
Check out some of Malcolm Wells' books; he's been doing this since the 1970s. (I don't know if he's still active.) I'm curious: As an engineer why are you involved in the nonstructural aspects of the design, such as egress, waterproofing, ventilation--not to mention potential claustrophobia? Shouldn't the architect be handling them? I stay as far away from waterproofing design, and its potential liability issues, as I possibly can.

Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
Structural Engineer
Richmond CA USA

In a message dated 11/29/07 6:54:50 AM, cbanbury@arkengineering.net writes:

Hi all.
I've been asked to engineer a single story residence that will be built into the side of a hill and covered with earth. The walk-out front elevation will be exposed.
Can someone direct me to some resources that address issues of water proofing, ventilation, egress, etc? The exterior walls will probably be reinforced masonry but I'm not certain of the type and configuration of the roof system.
Thanks in advance.

Christopher Banbury, PE

**************************************
Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)

RE: underground house

I agree, I would not work on this without a waterproofing consultant. Waterproofing has come a long ways with products from Hydrotech, Preproof, Stego, De Neef, Laticrete, WR Grace. BTW yesterday i saw another news story about WR Grace and their vermiculite asbestos products.

From: Rhkratzse@aol.com [mailto:Rhkratzse@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:00 AM
To: cbanbury@arkengineering.net; seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: underground house

Check out some of Malcolm Wells' books; he's been doing this since the 1970s. (I don't know if he's still active.) I'm curious: As an engineer why are you involved in the nonstructural aspects of the design, such as egress, waterproofing, ventilation--not to mention potential claustrophobia? Shouldn't the architect be handling them? I stay as far away from waterproofing design, and its potential liability issues, as I possibly can.

Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
Structural Engineer
Richmond CA USA

In a message dated 11/29/07 6:54:50 AM, cbanbury@arkengineering.net writes:

Hi all.
I’ve been asked to engineer a single story residence that will be built into the side of a hill and covered with earth. The walk-out front elevation will be exposed.
Can someone direct me to some resources that address issues of water proofing, ventilation, egress, etc? The exterior walls will probably be reinforced masonry but I’m not certain of the type and configuration of the roof system.
Thanks in advance.

Christopher Banbury, PE
President

Ark Engineering, Inc.
PO Box 10129, Brooksville, FL 34603
22 North Broad ST, Brooksville, FL 34601
Phone: (352) 754-2424
Fax: (352) 754-2412
www.arkengineering.net

**************************************
Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)

R value UBC97

I searched the archives and I am still unclear. I have a new wood framed residence that needs one story braced frames in one direction, mainly due to OT uplift requirements. The 2 vertical columns will take gravity load, but the top chord and single strut diagonal chord will not. What R should I use? We are submitting this in California before the end of the year.

Thanks,

Jeff

Re: weld symbols

Jerry,

You definitely want to show two weld symbols as one may be a prequalified weld whereas the other may not.

Thomas Hunt

"Jerry Coombs" <JCoombs@carollo.com>
11/29/2007 10:49 AM
Please respond to seaint

To	"SEA ListServe" <seaint@seaint.org>
cc
Subject	weld symbols

For those of you that do a lot of steel work:
Say you have an HSS square shape end butting to the side of another of the same size. Say you want to weld it all around (never mind why). Do you show two weld symbols, one for fillet weld both sides and one for flare bevel both sides? Or do you show one symbol for fillet weld all around, knowing full well it'll get done properly. one symbol makes for a much cleaner detail. In this case, weld stress is not a concern.
jdc

------------------------------------------------------------ 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: weld symbols

I’ve seen it both ways, and either way the steel detailer seems to figure it out. Still, I will typically show the two separate weld symbols.

Doug Mayer, SE

Structural Engineer

From: Jerry Coombs [mailto:JCoombs@carollo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 10:49 AM
To: SEA ListServe
Subject: weld symbols

For those of you that do a lot of steel work:

jdc

Visit our new website at www.taylorteter.com

weld symbols

For those of you that do a lot of steel work:

jdc

Re: threaded rod couplers

Christopher-

We used to use coupling nuts all the time in structural test setups

And I had all these same questions...luckily I had the facility to proof test the nuts depending on the loading demands to be applied.

www.mcmaster.com sells them (that's where I buy them) & has a good info on them as well

but a word of warning...... often coupling nuts are made from slightly smaller hex stock than "standard" nuts, thus they have a much smaller "tensile" cross section. I actually had a couple 5/8"-11 couplers fail in tension (pretty exciting)

Mcmaster (or any good bolt supply house) has ASTM rated 2H style heavy hex couplers but they're not cheap

Grade 8 will probably do the trick for you, but at least from mcmaster, they're not rated & cost about the same as the 2H.

Sorry to not answer all your questions directly but I found the whole coupling nut situation kind of a can of worms......

People use them all the time without concern as to whether they ' will generate the full tensile design strength of the threaded rod".
They tend to think of as nuts rather than tensile members

I know the grade 8's & the 2H's will fully develop any rod we used (A193 B7 was maximum strength rod that we use) but most of the time we could "cheap out" & use grade 5's.

In my experience only the 2H's were rated.

cheers
Bob

On Nov 29, 2007 8:47 AM, Christopher Banbury <cbanbury@arkengineering.net> wrote:

Does anyone know if threaded rod couplers, say ½" to ½", are manufactured to an ASTM standard as are bolts and nuts? What assurances are there that the couplers will generate the full tensile design strength of the threaded rod (A36, A307)? Are couplers proprietary items that require the manufacturer's certification or warranty? What grade of steel are they fabricated from?

Thanks.

Christopher Banbury, PE

President

Ark Engineering, Inc.

PO Box 10129 , Brooksville, FL 34603

22 North Broad ST , Brooksville, FL 34601

Phone: (352) 754-2424

Fax: (352) 754-2412

www.arkengineering.net