Structural Engineering: 2008-03-09

Saturday, March 15, 2008

N.Y. Crane Collapse

<SNIP>

Neighbors had also called in complaints, including on March 4, when a caller warned that the crane did not appear to be braced properly. A subsequent inspection suggested that the builder was complying with construction guidelines, aides from Stringer's office said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/15/AR2008031502286.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Re: off-topic-was- Wood LEED

On Mar 15, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Bob Freeman wrote:

> "Politics...to benefit the deserving"? That is a very curious
> phrase. Who
> determines 'the deserving'? Who decides if politic's provisions are
> actually a 'benefit'. Perhaps I am mis-understanding your meaning.
You're confusing politics with ideology. In government, we elect
people to determine the 'deserving' and work to pass (or defeat) laws
which will benefit one segment of society and not others. In Code
committee work groups of like-minded people work together to direct
the committee's attention to work aimed at achieving some beneficial
objective. Not everyone agrees completely on the actual objective or
who should benefit from the committee's work. The political structure
within the committee is a means of compromising so that the Committee
does the most good. A project team is another highly political group,
and you ignore political considerations at your peril.
>
>
> I see our Republic is an experiment in self-governance. Politics is
> only to protect the public. Protecting the. Federally, protection
> from foreign invaders. Locally, protection from those who are more
> powerful, numerous, etc.
You missed the point. Politics isn't just a trait of government. If
you've ever set out to influence client opinion or get some money for
a pet project or make some improvement by working with other
employees, you're engaged in politics. It happens at home and in
churches or any place where people band together and work to achieve
some goal. Although not to the point, I do think your example of
'protecting [those] with no other way to protect themselves' is a
perfect example of benefitting the deserving.

> Is this and Christopher's remark very much based on the concept:
> 'from each according to
> their abundance, to each according to their need' (I'm guessing I
> slaughtered that quote.) The author was Karl Marx.
We all know who Karl Marx is even though you did butcher the quote
badly. It's 'from each according to his ability, to each according to
his need.' But you're seeing Communists under the rug. And you're
twisting my words, which were very much based on nothing of the sort.
This point I was trying to make is that politics is a fact of everyday
life in all segments of society, including Code Committees

> Let's not import self-serving mistakes from politicians into the
> Engineering profession.

Let's not narrow our thinking and by interpreting everything with
laissez-faire ideology. You're sounding as doctrinaire as those
earnest little political science sophomores obsessed over Ayn Rand.'

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

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

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

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

Re: off-topic-was- Wood LEED

Bob Freeman wrote:

Hi Christopher:  "Politics...to benefit the deserving"?  That is a very curious phrase.  Who determines 'the deserving'?  Who decides if politic's provisions are actually a 'benefit'.  Perhaps I am mis-understanding your meaning.

Those for whom these thoughts resonate: I urge you to read Jonah Goldberg's new book "Liberal Fascism."

Eye-opening, to say the least.

Re: Wood LEED

RE: LEED

I believe that to save resources and energy, that Code officials should take signiificant steps to make it much easier to allow reuse of wood members.
Now, much lumber from buildings which are be replaced, remodeled and/or added to, is going to the dump or to Mexico rather than be reused in the project. This is because most building departments do not allow use of used lumber (without testing)- even though it is in many cases superior in quality to new lumber. They have elaborate procedures to test used lumber for strength, which are so cumbersome that this is rarely used.

Stan Scholl, P.E.
Laguna Beach, CA
_____________________________________________________________
Click to learn Spanish with our accelerated program - results in days!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iigMUcexqGlSTK99tE68JZtj0ITrf1y45Jb3p17pZ6PPXVszx/

off-topic-was- Wood LEED

Hi Christopher:

"Politics...to benefit the deserving"? That is a very curious phrase. Who
determines 'the deserving'? Who decides if politic's provisions are
actually a 'benefit'. Perhaps I am mis-understanding your meaning.

I see our Republic is an experiment in self-governance. Politics is only to
protect the public. Protecting the ones with no other way to protect
themselves. Federally, protection from foreign invaders. Locally,
protection from those who are more powerful, numerous, etc.

In last week's news there was a story about a State University which was
proposing to charge tuition based on student's family income. Is this and
Christopher's remark very much based on the concept: 'from each according to
their abundance, to each according to their need' (I'm guessing I
slaughtered that quote.) The author was Karl Marx.

Capitalism is harsh. It is not what Christopher is describing. Capitalism
provides the best way invented, to distribute scarce resources. Politics
should provide a different method for getting out of the way of capitalism.

Engineering is also focused on protecting the public, not 'benefiting the
deserving'.

Let's not import self-serving mistakes from politicians into the Engineering
profession.

Respectfully,
Bob Freeman, AIA, EIT
IDS Group, Inc.
(949) 387-8500

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Wright [mailto:chrisw@skypoint.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 1:59 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Wood LEED

> FWIW, I have yet to encounter a process that is 100% purely driven by
> science..."politics" always seems to enter the equation, even in code
> development areas.

Politics is greatly concerned with directing finite resources so as to
benefit the deserving. That's exactly what engineering does. Any
engineer who hasn't attempted to gather support for a project he
believes in or persuade naysayers, just hasn't been in the business
very long.

There's good politicians and bad politicians just like there's good
engineers and bad engineers.
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: Wood LEED

> FWIW, I have yet to encounter a process that is 100% purely driven by
> science..."politics" always seems to enter the equation, even in code
> development areas.

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

Re: Wood LEED

Chairman of the Committee: The Lorax.

-gm

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Bill Allen <t.w.allen@cox.net> wrote:

Why is that, Buddy?

Isn't the decision making process based in science?

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Consulting Structural Engineers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Showalter, Buddy [mailto:Buddy_Showalter@afandpa.org] On Behalf Of
> AWC Info
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:36 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org

> Subject: FW: Wood LEED
>
> The LEED system discriminates against environmentally superior
> U.S.-produced wood products,

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

--
-gm

RE: Wood LEED

Nice.

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen [mailto:t.w.allen@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 12:27 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Wood LEED

...or not respond at all to a post you apparently know nothing about.

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Consulting Structural Engineers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 8:09 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Wood LEED
>
> I am no expert in LEED...
>
> Having said all that, I will be the first to admit that I am rather
> "stupid"...
>
> I suppose I should be a good little boy and learn more about it all...
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>

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

RE: Wood LEED

...or not respond at all to a post you apparently know nothing about.

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Consulting Structural Engineers

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

RE: Wood LEED

Superior to what???

Regards,
Dave

> > >
> > > The LEED system discriminates against environmentally superior
> > > U.S.-produced wood products,
> >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > * 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:
> *
> *

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

RE: Wood LEED

I am no expert in LEED, but my understanding is that it is somewhat "one
sided" and is considered by many to not be the best system in the world.
Some people find that it does not give credit for some things that it should
and that politics plays too much of a role in the process. As a result, I
believe that there is at least one competing method that have come into
being, even if it is not as recognized as LEED.

Having said all that, I will be the first to admit that I am rather "stupid"
when it comes to the various "building green" or "sustainable building"
rating systems. This is partly due to choice (while many will accuse me of
being liberal, I just cannot get too excited about the whole "building
green" bit...I am not sure how much of it is "real" vs. just for show...call
it the cynic in me) and partly just due to where my expertise lies (I have
more than enough just keeping up with pure structural stuff, thank you). I
suppose I should be a good little boy and learn more about it all...after
all, I work in an industry that is supposely part of the whole sustainable
building world...SIPs...but I like being a structural engineering nerd (with
a side helping of computer nerd).

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen [mailto:t.w.allen@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:33 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Wood LEED

Both.

Sure, a little politics is expected even in a science-based committee
process to nudge a decision slightly towards one direction or the other.

However, what Buddy is suggesting is that a decision has been made
apparently in direct contradiction to the apparent goal. Either Buddy is
peddling cow manure or the LEED accreditation has no credibility.

I'm just asking; which is it?

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Consulting Structural Engineers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:44 PM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Wood LEED
>
> Bill...
>
> I cannot tell...
>
> Are you really asking or being sarcastic in asking?
>
> FWIW, I have yet to encounter a process that is 100% purely driven by
> science..."politics" always seems to enter the equation, even in code
> development areas.
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Allen [mailto:t.w.allen@cox.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:30 PM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Wood LEED
>
>
> Why is that, Buddy?
>
> Isn't the decision making process based in science?
>
> T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
> ALLEN DESIGNS
> Consulting Structural Engineers
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Showalter, Buddy [mailto:Buddy_Showalter@afandpa.org] On
> > Behalf Of AWC Info
> > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:36 AM
> > To: seaint@seaint.org
> > Subject: FW: Wood LEED
> >
> > The LEED system discriminates against environmentally superior
> > U.S.-produced wood products,
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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: Wood LEED

Both.

Sure, a little politics is expected even in a science-based committee
process to nudge a decision slightly towards one direction or the other.

I'm just asking; which is it?

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Consulting Structural Engineers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:44 PM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Wood LEED
>
> Bill...
>
> I cannot tell...
>
> Are you really asking or being sarcastic in asking?
>
> FWIW, I have yet to encounter a process that is 100% purely driven by
> science..."politics" always seems to enter the equation, even in code
> development areas.
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Allen [mailto:t.w.allen@cox.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:30 PM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Wood LEED
>
>
> Why is that, Buddy?
>
> Isn't the decision making process based in science?
>
> T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
> ALLEN DESIGNS
> Consulting Structural Engineers
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Showalter, Buddy [mailto:Buddy_Showalter@afandpa.org] On Behalf
> > Of AWC Info
> > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:36 AM
> > To: seaint@seaint.org
> > Subject: FW: Wood LEED
> >
> > The LEED system discriminates against environmentally superior
> > U.S.-produced wood products,
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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:
> *
> *

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

Friday, March 14, 2008

RE: Wood LEED

Bill...

I cannot tell...

Are you really asking or being sarcastic in asking?

FWIW, I have yet to encounter a process that is 100% purely driven by
science..."politics" always seems to enter the equation, even in code
development areas.

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen [mailto:t.w.allen@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:30 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Wood LEED

Why is that, Buddy?

Isn't the decision making process based in science?

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Consulting Structural Engineers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Showalter, Buddy [mailto:Buddy_Showalter@afandpa.org] On Behalf
> Of AWC Info
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:36 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: FW: Wood LEED
>
> The LEED system discriminates against environmentally superior
> U.S.-produced wood products,

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

RE: Wood LEED

Why is that, Buddy?

Isn't the decision making process based in science?

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Consulting Structural Engineers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Showalter, Buddy [mailto:Buddy_Showalter@afandpa.org] On Behalf Of
> AWC Info
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:36 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: FW: Wood LEED
>
> The LEED system discriminates against environmentally superior
> U.S.-produced wood products,

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

RE: Masonry Question

As stated, the 1/3 stress increase is permitted by IBC and ASCE 7 if allowed by the material standards. The ACI 530-05 has some good commentary in Commentary Sect. 2.1.2.3 and 2.1.3.4.

2.1.2.3 Previous editions of building codes have customarily used a higher allowable stress when

considering wind or earthquake in a structure. This increase has come under attack, and there has been some confusion as to the rationale for permitting the increase. The committee recognizes this situation but has opted to continue to increase allowable stresses in the traditional manner until documentation is available to warrant a change

2.1.3.4 Strength requirements - The strength of members and connections is based on working stress

procedures modified by a factor. The nominal capacity is approximated as the allowable stress increased by 1/3 (for the load combinations that include wind or earthquake in accordance with Section 2.1.2.3) and further multiplied by a factor of 2.5.

Regards,
Harold Sprague

From: sdorado@tbengineeringinc.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Masonry Question
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:39:41 -0700

Jason,

I re-read section 1605.3.2 in the IBC (same as in CBC) and it says the 1/3 increase is allowed when using the alternate load combinations which include wind or seismic, "where permitted by the material chapter or the referenced standards." This goes back to my original questions, because I have not been able to find the location in the masonry chapter of the IBC, where it mentions a 1/3 allowable stress increase. Also, it goes back to the debate I have about the sections in the Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI 530-05/ASCE 5-05/ TMS 402-05). Please let me know what you think.

Salvador Dorado

T & B Engineering, Inc.

4344 Latham St., Suite 100

Riverside, CA 92501-1773

P: (951) 684-6200

F: (951) 684-6226

From: Jason Christensen [mailto:jason@wcaeng.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 7:37 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Masonry Question

Not sure about the CBC, but the IBC allows the 1/3 increase, as allowed by other codes, only when using the Alternate ASD load combos, see IBC 2006 Section 1605.3.2.

Jason

From: Salbador Dorado [mailto:sdorado@tbengineeringinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 5:45 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Masonry Question

Is there an allowable 1/3 stress increase when designing Masonry Shear Walls using the ASD Method? If so could you please point me to the section of the ACI530/ASCE 5/TMS 602 or the 2007 CBC where I can find it. I know that there is a 1/3 stress increase allowed mentioned in section 2.1.2.3 of ACI 530/ASCE 5/ TMS 602 when considering load combination c, d, or e (which contain wind or earthquake loads) of section 2.1.2.1 of the ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 602. However, section 2107A.2 of the CBC requires that section 2.1.2.1 be deleted from the ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 602. Does the deletion of section 2.1.2.1 mean that the 1/3 allowable stress increase no longer applies? Or does it mean that the 1/3 increase is still permitted where the ASD Load Combination includes wind or earthquake loading. Please provide me with some information on this matter. Thank You.

Salvador Dorado

T & B Engineering, Inc.

4344 Latham St., Suite 100

Riverside, CA 92501-1773

P: (951) 684-6200

F: (951) 684-6226

Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. Play now!

RE: Roof Gardens Live load

Just to close the loop I started earlier, apparently the proponent of the two proposals I mentioned withdrew them. So the conflict between the LL table that specifies 100psf for "roof gardens" and the text that specifies 20psf for "landscaped roofs" will remain for the 2009 IBC. I guess that leaves us to call it a "roof garden" if it's accessible and a "landscaped roof" if it isn't and pick the load accordingly. (And hope the AHJ agrees!)

Gary

________________________________

From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmse4603@gmail.com]
Sent: Sun 2/17/2008 7:43 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Roof Gardens Live load

If you are talking about the live load rating for the roof simply because a garden is present, we've discussed that in the thread. I feel it's inappropriate for a non-accessible roof, but I don't have a quarrel if the roof is a gathering area. 100psf live loads are reducible, it's greater than 100psf and places of public assembly (which I would consider a garden roof that's accessible) that are not reducible for gravity or seismic loads.

-gm

On Feb 17, 2008 4:39 PM, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:

This is a dead load, the fact that it is a 100psf, more or less, should not trigger reductions in seismic mass.

They have garden roofs that are low profile (work in 3"-4" of soil) that weigh less than 35 psf when saturated.

-gm

On Feb 17, 2008 11:36 AM, Szuchuan Chang <szuchuan@gmail.com> wrote:

I was reading about the ASCE 7 Table 4-1 about the minimum roof loads.

"Roofs used for roof gardens .." 100 psf on page 13 of the book.

Hope that you have not miss this requirement.

//=====

In order to meet the LEED requirements (to get a SILVER) our project
manager insisting on adding a garden on the roof. In a SDC of "E"
building. In San Jose area near the bay.

Loads 100 psf are not reduceable for seismic design. How long will it
be for the building owner to recover the cost of adding extera lateral
capacity for a grarden on roof in Bay Area?

Szuchuan

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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 <http://www.seaint.org/>
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

--
-gm

FW: Wood LEED

The LEED system discriminates against environmentally superior
U.S.-produced wood products, is not based on life cycle assessment
(LCA), and was not developed by a consensus process. Here's a link to
more information on LEED as it relates to wood products:

http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Wood_Products/Green_Buildi
ng/Green_building_Fact_Sheets/Green_building_Fact_Sheets.htm

HTH

Buddy

-----Original Message-----
From: admin [mailto:admin@seausa.org]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 3:00 AM
To: AWC Info
Subject: seaint Digest for 13 Mar 2008

From: "erik gibbs" <erik.gibbs@gmail.com>
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Wood LEED

Actually, I was also curious about this. I called a few lumber supply
stores here in Orange county and they didn't know anything about it. I
think it is a great thing that the lumber be sustainably grown, but if
the FSC does not make suppliers aware then contractors can't use it.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Yi Yang <YI@summit-sr.com> wrote:

> I'm working on a project in California that will get a LEED
> certification. We specified on the framing plan with notes for "FSC
> Certified lumber", for framing and plywood. I talked to the
> contractor, and they said FSC certified lumber products are pretty
> easy to get, from plywood to sawn lumber to laminated product.

> YI YANG, S.E.
> ASSOCIATE | BRANCH MANAGER
> ___________________________
> SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC.
> 1500 3rd ST. Ste F
> NAPA, CA 94559
> 707.256.0708 EXT.202
> www.summit-sr.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drew Morris [mailto:dmorris@bbfm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:08 PM
> To: SEAINT
> Subject: Wood LEED
>
> I have a project where the client wants the wood products to follow
> the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) guidelines for the framing (2x
> studs, and engineered I-joists and LVL). This organization seems to
> mostly deal with forests in Asia, Africa and Europe. In North
> America, the lumber companies are members of the Sustainable Forestry
> Initiative (SFI). When you are involved in LEED projects, do you call

> out either of these organizations and their guidelines?
>

re: ASD- masonry question

Salvador,

I don't have the CBC, but I think you are interpreting it correctly. If using the traditional ASD/WSD combinations, most codes (Florida too, which is IBC based) now exclude the 1.33 material stress increase. Simpson had to redo a lot of their connection calculations based on these changes.

However, for the Florida BC if you use the "Alternative basic load combinations", you may use the stress increase.

For us in wind and zero seismic country, the big difference is that you cannot use 0.6D+W and the 1.33 stress increase, you must use D+W or D+W+L and then you take the stress increase.

HTH

Andrew

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

RE: Masonry Question

Jason,

I re-read section 1605.3.2 in the IBC (same as in CBC) and it says the 1/3 increase is allowed when using the alternate load combinations which include wind or seismic, “where permitted by the material chapter or the referenced standards.” This goes back to my original questions, because I have not been able to find the location in the masonry chapter of the IBC, where it mentions a 1/3 allowable stress increase. Also, it goes back to the debate I have about the sections in the Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI 530-05/ASCE 5-05/ TMS 402-05). Please let me know what you think.

Salvador Dorado

T & B Engineering, Inc.

4344 Latham St., Suite 100

Riverside, CA 92501-1773

P: (951) 684-6200

F: (951) 684-6226

From: Jason Christensen [mailto:jason@wcaeng.com]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 7:37 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Masonry Question

Not sure about the CBC, but the IBC allows the 1/3 increase, as allowed by other codes, only when using the Alternate ASD load combos, see IBC 2006 Section 1605.3.2.

Jason

From: Salbador Dorado [mailto:sdorado@tbengineeringinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 5:45 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Masonry Question

Is there an allowable 1/3 stress increase when designing Masonry Shear Walls using the ASD Method? If so could you please point me to the section of the ACI530/ASCE 5/TMS 602 or the 2007 CBC where I can find it. I know that there is a 1/3 stress increase allowed mentioned in section 2.1.2.3 of ACI 530/ASCE 5/ TMS 602 when considering load combination c, d, or e (which contain wind or earthquake loads) of section 2.1.2.1 of the ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 602. However, section 2107A.2 of the CBC requires that section 2.1.2.1 be deleted from the ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 602. Does the deletion of section 2.1.2.1 mean that the 1/3 allowable stress increase no longer applies? Or does it mean that the 1/3 increase is still permitted where the ASD Load Combination includes wind or earthquake loading. Please provide me with some information on this matter. Thank You.

Salvador Dorado

T & B Engineering, Inc.

4344 Latham St., Suite 100

Riverside, CA 92501-1773

P: (951) 684-6200

F: (951) 684-6226

Re: Wood LEED

FSC-certified wood is increasingly available. There are many FSC-certified forests in the US. FSC-US can help you find a source if you are having difficulty:

http://www.fscus.org/faqs/fsc_products.php?link=3

I would be interested in hearing from engineers who have successfully found and used FSC-certified structural lumber, sheathing, and/or engineered wood products in their projects.

Other wood certification systems (SFI, CSA, etc.) are not presently rewarded under the LEED rating system.

--Mark

Mark D. Webster
LEED Accredited Professional

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
781.907.9000 main
781.907.9369 direct
781.907.9009 fax
www.sgh.com

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Re: Rigid diaph. analysis with diagonal walls

This is actually a code requirement for plan irregularity for non-parallel systems.

Why not just detach the wall from the diaphragm? Do you really need it?

-gm

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 9:15 AM, David Merrick <MRKGP@winfirst.com> wrote:

Attention!

IF a skewed wall is analyzed by resolving each diagonal wall into
equivalent X and Y length walls,
THEN the resulting error can be as much as 30%.
This method should only be used by adding 30% of the Y forces to the X
forces and, visa versa.
in other words
By using 100% shear plus 30% of shear affects from the perpendicular
direction.

Know the method of your program.

Skewed wall stiffness in the direction of the base shear varies with the
stiffnesses of walls perpendicular to that base shear direction.

Example
All skewed wall stiffnesses reduce in the X direction when any one
non-skewed wall, in the Y direction is reduced.

I wonder how the seminar by-Gosh for skewed walls worked out? Was it not
given in the East Bay area near San Francisco?

David Merrick, Structural Engineer
WEIGHT, Conserves Energy, reduces noise and PROTECTS.
MRKGP@winfirst.com

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

--
-gm

Re: Wood LEED

Actually, I was also curious about this. I called a few lumber supply stores here in Orange county and they didn't know anything about it. I think it is a great thing that the lumber be sustainably grown, but if the FSC does not make suppliers aware then contractors can't use it.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Yi Yang <YI@summit-sr.com> wrote:

I'm working on a project in California that will get a LEED
certification. We specified on the framing plan with notes for "FSC
Certified lumber", for framing and plywood. I talked to the contractor,
and they said FSC certified lumber products are pretty easy to get, from
plywood to sawn lumber to laminated product.

YI YANG, S.E.
ASSOCIATE | BRANCH MANAGER
___________________________
SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC.
1500 3rd ST. Ste F
NAPA, CA 94559
707.256.0708 EXT.202
www.summit-sr.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Drew Morris [mailto:dmorris@bbfm.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:08 PM
To: SEAINT
Subject: Wood LEED

I have a project where the client wants the wood products to follow the
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) guidelines for the framing (2x studs,
and engineered I-joists and LVL). This organization seems to mostly
deal with forests in Asia, Africa and Europe. In North America, the
lumber companies are members of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative
(SFI). When you are involved in LEED projects, do you call out either
of these organizations and their guidelines?

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

Masonry Question

Salvador Dorado

T & B Engineering, Inc.

4344 Latham St., Suite 100

Riverside, CA 92501-1773

P: (951) 684-6200

F: (951) 684-6226

RE: Wood LEED

I'm working on a project in California that will get a LEED
certification. We specified on the framing plan with notes for "FSC
Certified lumber", for framing and plywood. I talked to the contractor,
and they said FSC certified lumber products are pretty easy to get, from
plywood to sawn lumber to laminated product.

YI YANG, S.E.
ASSOCIATE | BRANCH MANAGER
___________________________
SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC.
1500 3rd ST. Ste F
NAPA, CA 94559
707.256.0708 EXT.202
www.summit-sr.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Drew Morris [mailto:dmorris@bbfm.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:08 PM
To: SEAINT
Subject: Wood LEED

I have a project where the client wants the wood products to follow the
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) guidelines for the framing (2x studs,
and engineered I-joists and LVL). This organization seems to mostly
deal with forests in Asia, Africa and Europe. In North America, the
lumber companies are members of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative
(SFI). When you are involved in LEED projects, do you call out either
of these organizations and their guidelines?

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

Wood LEED

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

RE: Rigid diaph. analysis with diagonal walls

David,
Thanks for the information.
Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: David Merrick [mailto:MRKGP@winfirst.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:15 AM
To: SEAINT
Subject: Re: Rigid diaph. analysis with diagonal walls

Attention!

IF a skewed wall is analyzed by resolving each diagonal wall into
equivalent X and Y length walls,
THEN the resulting error can be as much as 30%.
This method should only be used by adding 30% of the Y forces to the X
forces and, visa versa.
in other words
By using 100% shear plus 30% of shear affects from the perpendicular
direction.

Know the method of your program.

Skewed wall stiffness in the direction of the base shear varies with the
stiffnesses of walls perpendicular to that base shear direction.

Example
All skewed wall stiffnesses reduce in the X direction when any one
non-skewed wall, in the Y direction is reduced.

I wonder how the seminar by-Gosh for skewed walls worked out? Was it not
given in the East Bay area near San Francisco?

David Merrick, Structural Engineer
WEIGHT, Conserves Energy, reduces noise and PROTECTS.
MRKGP@winfirst.com

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

Re: Rigid diaph. analysis with diagonal walls

Attention!

Know the method of your program.

Skewed wall stiffness in the direction of the base shear varies with the
stiffnesses of walls perpendicular to that base shear direction.

Example
All skewed wall stiffnesses reduce in the X direction when any one
non-skewed wall, in the Y direction is reduced.

I wonder how the seminar by-Gosh for skewed walls worked out? Was it not
given in the East Bay area near San Francisco?

David Merrick, Structural Engineer
WEIGHT, Conserves Energy, reduces noise and PROTECTS.
MRKGP@winfirst.com

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

Masonry ASD Method Question

Salvador Dorado

T & B Engineering, Inc.

4344 Latham St., Suite 100

Riverside, CA 92501-1773

P: (951) 684-6200

F: (951) 684-6226

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

RE: Email being blocked? maybe

Joe

Try checking:

http://seaint.blogspot.com/

I get return emails from seaint, but doesn’t always get posted on http://seaint.blogspot.com/

Only had one bounce back from seaint listserver that indicated post was too long. Also some times the return email informs that the message was posted and other times there is no such prefix to the posting.

So if I believe the message didn’t get through, I use the Blogspot posting as a better confirmation that a message got through. Thus for example my prior message on AS4055/AS1170.2 compared against ASCE7-05 doesn’t appear to have got through. Probably too long.

Otherwise your messages appear to be getting through.

Regards

Conrad Harrison

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

mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com

Adelaide

South Australia

From: Joseph R. Grill [mailto:jrgrill@cableone.net]
Sent: Thursday, 13 March 2008 03:39
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Email being blocked? maybe

I have switched to a new computer, and I am now using Outlook for email. It seems that some of my posts to seaint go through and come back to me, and some don’t. Same with replies that I send. Therefore, I’m not sure that all go through. Hence, some of my multiple posts. I’ve tried to figure out the blocked senders, received settings, but they don’t seem to be working. Any help out there with this off topic post?

Joe

RE: Alternate Wind Provision

I am pretty sure that what Gary is talking about is stuff for the next code cycle. But, I believe that the State of California has accepted an alternative method for at least some conditions (i.e. schools...see the link that was provided in the message that started this thread: http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/pubs/IR_Manual_updated_12-19-07.pdf ).

Regards,

Scott

Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Jnapd@aol.com [mailto:Jnapd@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:34 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Alternate Wind Provision

In a message dated 3/12/2008 9:29:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, gehrlich@nahb.com writes:

Trying to get my Inbox cleaned up…

I wanted to note that the IBC-Structural committee voted to approve the NCSEA version of the simplified wind procedure (S84, with minor modifications), over the SEAOC version (S85). The debate was extensive, but it did appear that one of the primary factors in the final decision was that the NCSEA version was a fully stand-alone method. The SEAOC method referred to the ASCE edge and corner zones but did not incorporate the ASCE 7 figures. Also there was much discussion of how both methods incorporated the internal pressure coefficients. The final vote was very close: 7-6 I believe.

I'm at an ASCE 7 wind subcommittee meeting right now; we're going to be discussing the proposal further with NCSEA later today.

Gary

Gary

Was this adopted for use now or do we have to wait till next code cycle.

Joe Venuti
Johnson & Nielsen Associates
Palm Springs, CA

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

Re: Alternate Wind Provision

In a message dated 3/12/2008 9:29:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, gehrlich@nahb.com writes:

Trying to get my Inbox cleaned up…

I wanted to note that the IBC-Structural committee voted to approve the NCSEA version of the simplified wind procedure (S84, with minor modifications), over the SEAOC version (S85). The debate was extensive, but it did appear that one of the primary factors in the final decision was that the NCSEA version was a fully stand-alone method. The SEAOC method referred to the ASCE edge and corner zones but did not incorporate the ASCE 7 figures. Also there was much discussion of how both methods incorporated the internal pressure coefficients. The final vote was very close: 7-6 I believe.

I'm at an ASCE 7 wind subcommittee meeting right now; we're going to be discussing the proposal further with NCSEA later today.

Gary

Gary

Was this adopted for use now or do we have to wait till next code cycle.

Joe Venuti
Johnson & Nielsen Associates
Palm Springs, CA

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

AISC 341-05 section 8.5 exception, 2006 IBC 1908.1.16

AISC 341-05 8.5 exception column bases reads "The special requirements in
ACI 318, Appendix D, for regions of moderate or high seismic risk, or for
structures assigned to intermediate or high seismic performance or design
categories" need not be applied."

If I was on the ACI 318 code committee I would probably write "the provisions
of AISC 341 do not need to be applied" but that is besides the point.

Does this mean that for anchoring steel buildings per AISC 341-05 the
provision that anchor failure in high seismic areas does not need to be
controlled by ductile yielding of the steel as required by ACI 318? Can you
do this in IBC land? 2006 IBC IBC 2205.2.2 does not amend AISC 341 part 1.

2006 IBC 1908.1.16 modifies ACI 318-05 says in design category D you can
design anchors for 2.5 times the factored forces delivered to them and not
have to meet the requirement for the steel to fail in ductile yielding prior
to failure of the concrete. I guess this only applies to concrete and wood
buildings?