Re: Steel slides for quick reference

On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:24 PM, Conrad Harrison wrote:

> Seems a great deal of efficient and less error prone technologies
> have been
> discarded in an attempt to elevate the status of engineers, by
> showing their
> prowess with mathematics, followed by increasing desire to put
> formulae into
> a computer.
>
> Which is all very well: but what is the point of a model if it
> cannot be
> held in the human mind, understood and comprehended by humans, and
> evaluated
> by humans, in real time.
Don't mistake reference materials for calculation aids. Most of my
practice involves computer techniques in one form or another, but I
still have plenty of reference handouts that I use every day to find
everything from weld symbols and fitting weights to bolt stress areas
and nominal pre-loads. You can't do FEA without this stuff--at least
not FEA with engineering significance.

The reason you're seeing less of this sort of thing is that suppliers
have quit handing it out in an effort to cut costs. Or, like the
Aluminum Association they've bundled a lot of this and started
selling it. On a shallow commercial level, probably they're within
their rights, but I'd really like to see that particular golden egg
stuffed back up the goose.

Anyone who's interested in graphic aids should research the lost art
of nomography--how to make alignment charts to solve equations You
can still find articles on how to design them <http://mathforum.org/

library/drmath/view/63338.html>. Nomograms let you do implicit
solutions. Everyone with a programmable calculator probably has the
column allowable load programmed--enter Length, K and radius of
gyration, keystroke and you get the load. A nomograph will let you
input any three variables and get the fourth with a straightedge--no
algebra . They used to be a real pain in the ass to lay out with
pencil and paper, but with a decent graphics program you could
probably do one in a couple of hours.

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

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

Mechanical Engineer wants me to stamp his M sheets

The Mechanical Engineer is mistaken. The design of piping design, pipe hangers, bracing of ducts, and bracing of mechanical equipment is considered part of the practice of Mechanical Engineering in California and as a result the ME is allowed to design these items and sign off on them without a SE. The Electrical Engineers are also allowed to design the anchorage for conduit and electrical equipment. This assumes that they are operating within their area of expertise. I know a formal OSHPD supervising engineer that agrees with this interpretation.

Much of the real expertise regarding these items resides with ME's and not SE's. All piping and piping supports in nuclear plants are done to ASME standards which are written by ME's. The 2007 CBC references ASME B31.3 for process piping. Pipe stress design is tricky for an SE and pipe support design often needs to consider thermal expansion and other operationg considerations.

By the way if you screw or drill into the mechanical equipment have the ME verify that this will not cut a wire or piece of tubing.

In my experience with DSA and OSHPD projects we were not asked to sign the ME drawings.

While many ME's are comfortable incorporating your recommendations and signing the M sheets it is not unreasonable for you sign your work. As mentioned this could consist of you preparing a M sheet with only your work and signing it. You would want the ME to review this drawing and verify that your details are compatible with the mechanical systems. The ME need not sign this sheet unless you so wish.

Mark Gilligan

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: House Leveling

Leveling a house is much easier than the lifting, placing steel beams, etc. described in previous messages/ questions. However if a new foundation is needed the raising described is necessary many times.

Stan Scholl, P.E.
Laguna Beach, CA
_____________________________________________________________
Click to learn Spanish with our accelerated program - results in days!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iigMUchx8F8iDje1TpU449owdtLxmzXIj2PIGQ3bKD4CwL0Ar/

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: home evaluation

Thanks for the recommendations.

I talked to a friend who is an insurance agent and this gave me another idea. She says that they have access to a database the shows the location of the nearest sinkhole and they use this for premiums. She didn’t know where the data came from but I’m guessing it must come from previous claims and perhaps some geotechnical surveys. Also she said that they can pull up the claim history on any house.

Anyway, I’m thinking that a buyer or perhaps even an engineer could arrange for an agent to quote or research a house prior to purchase and prior to report issuance.

 

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

 

 

---

From: Andrew Kester, P.E. [mailto:akester@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:01 PM
To: seaint
Subject: re: home evaluation

 

Chris,

I do these types of home evaluations/investigations, as I feel everyone deserves a good structural engineer such as yourself (not trying to put myself over either). I have come across a TON of settlement problems. In FL with our sandy soil and weak limestone layer, lots of rainfall, and lack of proper footing compaction, and largely spaced reinforcement (if any) in the CMU walls, there are settlement cracks in nearly every masonry structure around.... Also see if there are gutters, obvious roof runoff, or sprinkler systems, these can also exacerbate subsidence.

 

Just limit your liaibility with a good, clearly worded contract, saying you are only performing a limited structural investigation of obvious, existing problems. Put limitiations of liaiblity, and clearly state you are just offering a professional opinion, you are not doing repair design work and not guaranteeing that the problems will not reoccur or continue, whatever the case may be. And always conclude your report by saying any existing cracks or issues should be monitored. You are not performing a Geotech evaluation. I would also ask some questions about the history, and of course talk to a realtor about the FL disclosure laws, in my couple of real estate transactions it seems to be spelled out with wording about mold, asbestos, and maybe sinkholes.

 

 

Andrew Kester, P.E.
Principal/Project Manager
ADK Structural Engineering, PLLC
1510 E. Colonial Ave., Suite 301
Orlando, FL 32803
M 407-921-1617
F 321-249-0349

RE: Steel slides for quick reference

I have one of these detail wheels at home.  Unfortunately, it doesn't reflect the changes made a short while back to the k values of beams.  Has it been updated?

 

Bob Garner, S.E.

 

---

From: G Vishwanath [mailto:gvshwnth@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:56 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org; steel steel; misc misc
Subject: Re: Steel slides for quick reference

 

Thanks to all who responded including those who wrote in privately.

I got the information I asked for.
The proper name is "wheel chart".
The maker is Alcott , Florida.
The cost is $13.50 each.
Full particulars are avaialable at www.alcott.com

 

I have already alerted my daughter and she has placed the order for a few of them.
Some people wrote in telling me about  Detail Cad Genie
I already use it.
Aisc too has a similar utility.
I wanted something for "off line" use, that is when I am not in front of the computer.
This wheel chart will suit me fine.

Regards
Vish

 

---

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.

Re: Steel slides for quick reference

Quote:
===================
Brilliant!
Regards
Conrad Harrison
==================
Unquote:

 

Brilliant?

Who ? Me?
Gosh! Thanks a million.
Permit me to  blush in modesty!
It's years since a steel detailer heard a kind word from any one.

If you are referring to the wheel chart, Oh well never mind.
The feeling was nice while it lasted.

 

Yes, we do use Tekla structures and none in my team will have any use for this chart.
It may hang on the wall as a show piece.
But I do look at dwgs occasionally. I find it inconvenient to thumb through the pages of the manual or switch on my computer and wait for en eternity while it boots up, to quickly refer to some dimension of interest.  During my professional career,  I had all the dimensions and properties of the common Indian sections memorized. That would tempt you to call me brilliant until you become aware that we in India  had just about a dozen sections to choose from and memorizing was possible and the most practical thing to do.

 

Anyway, I'm paying just $13.50 for this wheel chart and will record this as a business expense in my books. What have I got to lose? May be I can auction it as an antique piece years from now. I already have four slide rules in my antique collection.
Very soon I too (in flesh and blood) hope to join this antique collection.

And yes, do accept my compliments and thanks for introducing a philosophical touch to the proceedings. No, your posts are not too long. You have a long way to go before you can beat Dennis Wish on this list and my old posts on the steel-detail list.

 

Regards,
Vish

 

---

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.

RE: Steel slides for quick reference

Brilliant!

 

Regards

Conrad Harrison

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

mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com

Adelaide

South Australia

---

From: G Vishwanath [mailto:gvshwnth@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, 4 April 2008 15:26
To: seaint@seaint.org; steel steel; misc misc
Subject: Re: Steel slides for quick reference

 

Thanks to all who responded including those who wrote in privately.

I got the information I asked for.
The proper name is "wheel chart".
The maker is Alcott , Florida.
The cost is $13.50 each.
Full particulars are avaialable at www.alcott.com

 

I have already alerted my daughter and she has placed the order for a few of them.
Some people wrote in telling me about  Detail Cad Genie
I already use it.
Aisc too has a similar utility.
I wanted something for "off line" use, that is when I am not in front of the computer.
This wheel chart will suit me fine.

Regards
Vish

 

---

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.

Re: Steel slides for quick reference

Thanks to all who responded including those who wrote in privately.

I got the information I asked for.
The proper name is "wheel chart".
The maker is Alcott , Florida.
The cost is $13.50 each.
Full particulars are avaialable at www.alcott.com

 

I have already alerted my daughter and she has placed the order for a few of them.
Some people wrote in telling me about  Detail Cad Genie
I already use it.
Aisc too has a similar utility.
I wanted something for "off line" use, that is when I am not in front of the computer.
This wheel chart will suit me fine.

Regards
Vish

---

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.

RE: Steel slides for quick reference

Looking through old books it is amazing how many design curves, nomographs,
along with mechanical wheels and special slide rules were used to speed up
calculation. It is also strange that basically, experiments are performed,
and design curves are plotted through the data, and then the curve is
transformed into a mathematical expression which is published in the codes.
Then everyone wastes time conducting calculations to regenerate the
experimental curve, or worst conducting point calculations and oblivious to
the nature of the design curve.

Seems a great deal of efficient and less error prone technologies have been
discarded in an attempt to elevate the status of engineers, by showing their
prowess with mathematics, followed by increasing desire to put formulae into
a computer.

Which is all very well: but what is the point of a model if it cannot be
held in the human mind, understood and comprehended by humans, and evaluated
by humans, in real time.

If Vish is using Tekla XSteel why would he need some other tool to get the
dimensions and properties of steel sections?

Using such modelling tools is like a carpenter cutting everything to fit on
site. Everything eventually fits together, but the builder of the model,
doesn't understand why things are the way they are. Consequently cannot
rationalise fabrication and construction to achieve greater economy and
productivity. And relying on the part libraries being correct is not
altogether sensible: they need checking//auditing occasionally against a
controlled data source.

The real design is still happening outside the computer models. What the
human mind knows is way faster than leaving it to a computer to workout.

So the AISC database can provide the dimensions when at a computer. But not
much help on site, when trying to figure out what has gone wrong. The wheel
a calculator, and an experienced mind, would be far more efficient.

Unfortunately computers are seen as being far more useful than they actually
are. With published handbooks decreasing in content, and useful mechanical
calculators and lookup tables disappearing from the scene.

Hopefully the wheel Vish is looking for is still around.

Regards
Conrad Harrison
B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
Adelaide
South Australia

-----Original Message-----
From: Szuchuan Chang [mailto:szuchuan@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 4 April 2008 13:17
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Steel slides for quick reference

Vish,

40 years ago, my boss handed me one when I joint my first engineering
firm. My boss called it a wheel. I have not see one at all for the
last 25 years. I through the reason is because we outsource most of
our design works out of our country. We had to get it from maybe
India!

Of cause I am half joking.

Could you try to download the EXCEL shape data base from AISC? It may
be easier to use. They like to change the list and the dimensions
every so often. Wheel just can't keep up with them.

HTH

Szuchuan

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:22 AM, G Vishwanath <gvshwnth@yahoo.com> wrote:
> List,
>
> From where can I order the circular steel dimensions and properties slide?
>
> I have seen this used before.
> It used to consist of two circular concentric disks one of them housed
> inside the other and which could be rotated with respect to each other.
The
> inside disk had the values of the properties of sections printed on the
> surface and outside disk had named slots/openings through which we could
> pick a particular section and read it's properties It was convenient and
> handy and one didn'thave to reach for the bulky manual for a quick lookup
of
> the dimensions and properties of common steel sections.
>
> A steel slide like this is available in India for Indian sections but
this
> is rectangular.
> I wish to order a few of these slides for American sections.
> My daughter who lives in USA is visitng India on vacation and I am asking
> her to bring a few feet and inch calculators for me. I thought of asking
her
> to get these slides as well.
> I know how to order to the calculators on line and have already requested
my
> daughter to do so.
> Can any one let me know the web site from where these slides can be
ordered
> on line?
> How much do they cost apiece? What do you call them? Do they have a brand
> name?
>
> Regards
> Vish
>
>
> ________________________________
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster
> Total Access, No Cost.
>
>

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

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

Re: Steel slides for quick reference

Vish,

40 years ago, my boss handed me one when I joint my first engineering
firm. My boss called it a wheel. I have not see one at all for the
last 25 years. I through the reason is because we outsource most of
our design works out of our country. We had to get it from maybe
India!

Of cause I am half joking.

Could you try to download the EXCEL shape data base from AISC? It may
be easier to use. They like to change the list and the dimensions
every so often. Wheel just can't keep up with them.

HTH

Szuchuan

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:22 AM, G Vishwanath <gvshwnth@yahoo.com> wrote:
> List,
>
> From where can I order the circular steel dimensions and properties slide?
>
> I have seen this used before.
> It used to consist of two circular concentric disks one of them housed
> inside the other and which could be rotated with respect to each other. The
> inside disk had the values of the properties of sections printed on the
> surface and outside disk had named slots/openings through which we could
> pick a particular section and read it's properties It was convenient and
> handy and one didn'thave to reach for the bulky manual for a quick lookup of
> the dimensions and properties of common steel sections.
>
> A steel slide like this is available in India for Indian sections but this
> is rectangular.
> I wish to order a few of these slides for American sections.
> My daughter who lives in USA is visitng India on vacation and I am asking
> her to bring a few feet and inch calculators for me. I thought of asking her
> to get these slides as well.
> I know how to order to the calculators on line and have already requested my
> daughter to do so.
> Can any one let me know the web site from where these slides can be ordered
> on line?
> How much do they cost apiece? What do you call them? Do they have a brand
> name?
>
> Regards
> Vish
>
>
> ________________________________
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster
> Total Access, No Cost.
>
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Mechanical Engineer wants me to stamp his M sheets

Terry Weatherby said:

" Dang, Conrad. You have a lot of time on your hands! LOL."

Not really. I just spend most of my time dealing with problems due to people
avoiding design. So it doesn't overly concern me how much time I spend
philosophising about design, if it provides me with the framework to solve
the problems and understand how people get into the mess, they want help
with.

Also I often don't post my responses, because they get really long!

Regards
Conrad Harrison
B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
Adelaide
South Australia

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Mechanical Engineer wants me to stamp his M sheets

Dang, Conrad. You have a lot of time on your hands! LOL…

Terry Weatherby
Weatherby-Reynolds-Fritson
Engineering and Design
Jackson, California

From: Conrad Harrison [mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:23 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Mechanical Engineer wants me to stamp his M sheets

Gerard Madden wrote:

" Just finished a big project for DSA (a division of DGS) who had the
architect sign and seal all 447 sheets of the drawings set, including the 35
structural sheets. "
<end quote>
It makes sense. The architect as principle designer is responsible for
delegation of work to specialist consultants. If they wanted to they could
design everything themselves. But it would be beneficial to get certain
aspects of the design reviewed by specialists. Evaluating
fitness-for-function against mandated performance criteria is not the same
as design, nor is documentation and presentation the same as design. If I
want to design a structure using 2kPa wind load I can, and the resultant
specification will in most instances be found code compliant because the
code will produce a pressure of around 1kPa or less. There are also other
issues to consider in design, such as economy of fabrication and
construction: there are a multitude of other issues where the minimum size
for a member is larger than that recommended by purely structural
considerations. So design first, code checking last.

The architect as principle designer is responsible for bringing all those
other issues together and deciding on the final specification. By sealing
all the documents the architect is declaring everything has been
coordinated, all issues have been considered, and the whole building is
fit-for-function. They are also declaring a confidence in the SE they
appointed for the structural design. If the architect refuses to sign the
structural drawings, then they must have issues with the competence of the
SE they appointed, in which case another SE needs to be appointed to review
the proposal. The architect should have the competence to read the SE's
drawings and accept or reject as suitable for their project. The architect's
prior experience should alert them as to whether the current SE is under or
over sizing: leading to a requirement for the SE to justify or be replaced.

Personally I don't see why the architect cannot document the entire project,
it would be far more efficient, and they would have done so historically.
The engineers and other sub-consultants are employed to provide design
input, and specialist skills in evaluating sufficiency-of-purpose. Drafters
produce the formal documents, and can produce about 80% of the content
without engineering or architectural input. Designers may present their
ideas as technical drawings but it is the drafter who turns it into a
controlled document. So the architect could employ all drafters in their
office, and doing so would re-integrate a lot of the design content into the
mind of a single design-drafter. Especially more efficient when using layers
and external references in CAD, or the more hi-tech BIM packages. The
drawings are simply a virtual model built on paper, and the engineers and
other designers simply supervise its construction on paper. The division
between specialists is relatively artificial and arbitrary: specializations
increase by the year. So having the principle designer in control of all
documentation and presentation standards has its benefits.

For that matter separate the documentation process from the designer's
altogether. Traditionally technical drawings were produced to solve
problems: now drawings seem only to exist as a means of presenting
solutions. With documentation becoming an end within itself: rather than a
means to an end. So architects and engineers can both get their documents
produced by an independent drafting service. Forcing the designers to
reconsider the value of drawing as a problem solving tool, and that they
themselves should still be working at a drawing board (or CAD). Also to
further recognize the real value of their services, given that many projects
are simply documentation exercises, in need of technical review. And also
noting that past documentation potentially presents design content more
robust than what modern incomplete codes of practice permit. That is if do
not have experience of past practice, then design purely to the code will
most likely produce something defective: because there are a multitude of
design issues not covered by the codes. So a drafter with 30 years
experience may produce a better solution than a code-cruncher.

So what really matters is that a design proposal is properly documented, and
that such documented proposal has gone through an adequate series of checks
to ensure that the proposal is fit-for-function, sufficient-for-purpose and
ultimately code-compliant. The code issues coming last. Further that there
is a principle designer to address issues not properly addressed with
respect to fabrication and construction, and to properly coordinate and
re-evaluate design changes arising from the need to make the implementation
of the proposal feasible and practical. For a building that person is
usually the architect.

Regards
Conrad Harrison
B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
Adelaide
South Australia
 

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Is list server down?

 

There were a few messages yesterday. And yours is one of two today. If that helps.

Regards

Conrad Harrison

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

mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com

Adelaide

South Australia

---

From: Larry Hauer [mailto:lrhauer@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 4 April 2008 00:46
To: seaint@seaint.org; visualcadd@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Is list server down?

 

I haven't recieved any mesages in the last 2 days. This message is to check if list server is still active.
 
Thans in advance,
 
L.R. Hauer

---

Pack up or back up–use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies. Learn how.

RE: subgrade modulus

A good source of information is Chapter 4 in ASCE 41-06.  There are
some practical ways to quantify presumptive subgrade spring stiffnesses
for different foundation types.  Getting a geotechnical engineer's value
is always the best though.
   
Harold is right in that the effective subgrade stiffness of the soil
is dependent on the shape and stiffness of the foundation element
relative to the soil stiffness.  Embedment is another factor that has an
impact.
   
-Ben
 

Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> wrote:

I am not really sure.  I am not a geotechnical engineer, but it has to do with the slab on grade being essentially unreinforced concrete bearing on a prepared subgrade and a small area of applied load as opposed to a large foundation being a reinforced concrete rigid element bearing directly on soil.  It also has to do with the transient loading of a slab on grade vs. more long term effects on a raft foundation. 
 
I just know enough NOT to use the subgrade modulus given in the geotech report for slab on grade when I design a mat foundation. 
 
Regards,
Harold Sprague

---

From: Truitt@AshleyVance.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: subgrade modulus
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:10:08 -0700

Harold,

 

Can you tell me why its markedly different?

 

Thanks,

 

Truitt Vance

 

---

From: Harold Sprague [mailto:spraguehope@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:33 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: subgrade modulus

 

This is a geotech question, but you need to let them know the application.  A subgrade modulus for a raft foundation is markedly different than a subgrade modulus for a slab on grade. 

Regards,
Harold Sprague

> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:38:38 -0700
> From: ankiswani@yahoo.com
> Subject: subgrade modulus
> To: seaint@seaint.org
>
>
> can any body tell me how to calculate the subgrade
> modulus from the soil test report
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

---

In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.

---

Windows Live Hotmail is giving away Zunes. Enter for your chance to win.

Benjamin H. Maxwell, S.E.

---

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.

Steel slides for quick reference

List,

 

From where can I order the circular steel dimensions and properties slide?

 

I have seen this used before.

It used to consist of two circular concentric disks one of them housed inside the other and which could be rotated with respect to each other. The inside disk had the values of the  properties of sections printed on the surface and outside disk had named slots/openings through which we could pick a particular section and read it's properties It was convenient and handy and one didn'thave to reach for the bulky manual for a quick lookup of the dimensions and properties of common steel sections.

 

 A steel slide like this is available in India for Indian sections but this is rectangular.

I wish to order a few of these slides for American sections.

My daughter who lives in USA is visitng India on vacation and I am asking her to bring a few feet and inch calculators for me. I thought of asking her to get these slides as well.

I know how to order to the calculators on line and have already requested my daughter to do so.

Can any one let me know the web site from where these slides can be ordered on  line?

How much do they cost apiece? What do you call them? Do they have a brand name?

 

Regards

Vish

 

---

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.

re: home evaluation

Chris,

I do these types of home evaluations/investigations, as I feel everyone deserves a good structural engineer such as yourself (not trying to put myself over either). I have come across a TON of settlement problems. In FL with our sandy soil and weak limestone layer, lots of rainfall, and lack of proper footing compaction, and largely spaced reinforcement (if any) in the CMU walls, there are settlement cracks in nearly every masonry structure around.... Also see if there are gutters, obvious roof runoff, or sprinkler systems, these can also exacerbate subsidence.

 

Just limit your liaibility with a good, clearly worded contract, saying you are only performing a limited structural investigation of obvious, existing problems. Put limitiations of liaiblity, and clearly state you are just offering a professional opinion, you are not doing repair design work and not guaranteeing that the problems will not reoccur or continue, whatever the case may be. And always conclude your report by saying any existing cracks or issues should be monitored. You are not performing a Geotech evaluation. I would also ask some questions about the history, and of course talk to a realtor about the FL disclosure laws, in my couple of real estate transactions it seems to be spelled out with wording about mold, asbestos, and maybe sinkholes.

 

 

Andrew Kester, P.E.
Principal/Project Manager
ADK Structural Engineering, PLLC
1510 E. Colonial Ave., Suite 301
Orlando, FL 32803
M 407-921-1617
F 321-249-0349

Re: House Leveling

These are lifting/ raising/ moving methods.  levelling is basically in-place.  Long beams take more prep work and bigger jacks.

>>> On 4/1/2008 at 2:08 PM, "Gerard Madden, SE" <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:

The way I've seen it done is for a contractor to slip wide flange beams to the underside of the lower floor framing inserted from each end at some regular spacing along the longitudinal side of the house (WF span the short direction of the house). Then they either provide interior supports for jacks (if they can get in there) or create a moment splice in the beams they insert from either end and jack only from outside the building. These are for houses with crawlspaces or basements.

Then when they have it up high enough, they place more temporary supports inside using cribbing and allow work to take place. Usually this is done when someone is adding a full basement, but maybe not if it's just a leveling job.

Sometimes, they will also create a rail system, where they lift the house then slide the house off it's footprint to allow work to begin or to move the house elsewhere.

-gm

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Gaines, David <David.Gaines@hdrinc.com> wrote:

Bill,

 

As a highly qualified, well educated professional engineer you probably should not recommend means and methods of construction. I know a contractor or two who may be qualified to do the job, but I wouldn't stick my neck out to tell them how it's done.

 

If you do find out how this is done and what to recommend, I'd be interested in hearing it. I need to level the floors in my old Craftsman home too.

 

Thanks,

Dave Gaines

 

Dave Gaines, P.E.

Structural Project Engineer
HDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions
251 S. Lake Ave, Suite 1000
Pasadena, CA 91101
T: 626.584.4960
F: 626.584.1750
email: david.gaines@hdrinc.com

 

---

From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill@polhemus.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:39 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: House Leveling

Jerry Coombs wrote:

Yes.  A lot a variables.  What sort of piers in what type of soil.  In stable circumstances it can be as simple as shims, but some types of houses need more "gentle" treatment.  One needs to know exacty *why* it's unlevel first. 

I'm specifically interested in the "means and methods" typically used in the "jacking" process, rather than the finished product.

For instance, how do they set up to make sure you're not shifting the load onto the floor or some other part of the structure unduly? I've seen a very messy example of this and need to figure out what SHOULD have been done in that particular case.
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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: House Leveling

Out here in Central TX, we have some of the worst clays in the country.  Causes lots of various problems that are different from a relatively stable settlement issue. 

The best way here, is a reputable company (read: don't go lowest bid) comes out w/ about fifty, 40 Ton jacks.  They place these next to most of the piers.  Sometimes w/ carrier beams, etc.  then starting at the lowest points, they start jacking by about 1/4" increments or so.  Not sure of the amount, they know what they're doing.  Someone inside is with a Comp-u-level.  maybe a framing level.  They continue along until it's level, and shim.

Don't expect this to happen without drywall cracking!  It'll need repair proportionate to amount of lift.  Shouldn't incur any additional structural damage, but may make more apparent, or exascerbate what is already there.

If it's lifting due to clays, There are other issues.

Feel free to contact me if you need more.

JDC

jcoombs@carollo.com

972-763-4435

>>> On 4/1/2008 at 6:38 AM, Bill Polhemus <bill@polhemus.cc> wrote:

Jerry Coombs wrote:

Yes.  A lot a variables.  What sort of piers in what type of soil.  In stable circumstances it can be as simple as shims, but some types of houses need more "gentle" treatment.  One needs to know exacty *why* it's unlevel first. 

I'm specifically interested in the "means and methods" typically used in the "jacking" process, rather than the finished product.

For instance, how do they set up to make sure you're not shifting the load onto the floor or some other part of the structure unduly? I've seen a very messy example of this and need to figure out what SHOULD have been done in that particular case.

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

ASCE- Engineers Society Accused of Cover-ups, (Associated Press News Story)

Dear Seaint Friends: Please see my letter to ASCE President with regard
to the Associated Press news story at:

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/WTC/WTC-Index.html

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor
www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh
==========================================

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Mechanical Engineer wants me to stamp his M sheets

Gerard Madden wrote:

 

“ Just finished a big project for DSA (a division of DGS) who had the architect sign and seal all 447 sheets of the drawings set, including the 35 structural sheets. “

<end quote>

It makes sense. The architect as principle designer is responsible for delegation of work to specialist consultants. If they wanted to they could design everything themselves. But it would be beneficial to get certain aspects of the design reviewed by specialists. Evaluating fitness-for-function against mandated performance criteria is not the same as design, nor is documentation and presentation the same as design. If I want to design a structure using 2kPa wind load I can, and the resultant specification will in most instances be found code compliant because the code will produce a pressure of around 1kPa or less. There are also other issues to consider in design, such as economy of fabrication and construction: there are a multitude of other issues where the minimum size for a member is larger than that recommended by purely structural considerations. So design first, code checking last.

 

The architect as principle designer is responsible for bringing all those other issues together and deciding on the final specification. By sealing all the documents the architect is declaring everything has been coordinated, all issues have been considered, and the whole building is fit-for-function. They are also declaring a confidence in the SE they appointed for the structural design. If the architect refuses to sign the structural drawings, then they must have issues with the competence of the SE they appointed, in which case another SE needs to be appointed to review the proposal. The architect should have the competence to read the SE’s drawings and accept or reject as suitable for their project. The architect’s prior experience should alert them as to whether the current SE is under or over sizing: leading to a requirement for the SE to justify or be replaced.

 

Personally I don’t see why the architect cannot document the entire project, it would be far more efficient, and they would have done so historically. The engineers and other sub-consultants are employed to provide design input, and specialist skills in evaluating sufficiency-of-purpose. Drafters produce the formal documents, and can produce about 80% of the content without engineering or architectural input. Designers may present their ideas as technical drawings but it is the drafter who turns it into a controlled document. So the architect could employ all drafters in their office, and doing so would re-integrate a lot of the design content into the mind of a single design-drafter. Especially more efficient when using layers and external references in CAD, or the more hi-tech BIM packages. The drawings are simply a virtual model built on paper, and the engineers and other designers simply supervise its construction on paper. The division between specialists is relatively artificial and arbitrary: specializations increase by the year. So having the principle designer in control of all documentation and presentation standards has its benefits.

 

For that matter separate the documentation process from the designer’s altogether. Traditionally technical drawings were produced to solve problems: now drawings seem only to exist as a means of presenting solutions. With documentation becoming an end within itself: rather than a means to an end. So architects and engineers can both get their documents produced by an independent drafting service. Forcing the designers to reconsider the value of drawing as a problem solving tool, and that they themselves should still be working at a drawing board (or CAD). Also to further recognize the real value of their services, given that many projects are simply documentation exercises, in need of technical review. And also noting that past documentation potentially presents design content more robust than what modern incomplete codes of practice permit. That is if do not have experience of past practice, then design purely to the code will most likely produce something defective: because there are a multitude of design issues not covered by the codes. So a drafter with 30 years experience may produce a better solution than a code-cruncher.

 

So what really matters is that a design proposal is properly documented, and that such documented proposal has gone through an adequate series of checks to ensure that the proposal is fit-for-function, sufficient-for-purpose and ultimately code-compliant. The code issues coming last. Further that there is a principle designer to address issues not properly addressed with respect to fabrication and construction, and to properly coordinate and re-evaluate design changes arising from the need to make the implementation of the proposal feasible and practical. For a building that person is usually the architect.

 

Regards

Conrad Harrison

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

mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com

Adelaide

South Australia

 

Re: Mechanical Engineer wants me to stamp his M sheets

Just finished a big project for DSA (a division of DGS) who had the architect sign and seal all 447 sheets of the drawings set, including the 35 structural sheets.

I think if you prepared the calculations, you should stamp those.

The drawings, I don't think it's necessary as long as one licensed engineer does so, but I have seen where engineers stamp details within other disciplines drawing packages.

I've done some OSHPD anchorage work in the past and the only stamp the OSHPD SE placed on the drawing was not an Engineering Seal, more like a 3-4 line stamp where they place their signature, date, project number, and submittal number saying they reviewed and approved the drawing.

I got a Soils report last week that had 4 different engineering stamps on it ranging from PE, GE, Certified Engineering Geologist, and I think one more GE...

-gm

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Conrad Harrison <sch.tectonic@bigpond.com> wrote:

Diane

 

Not familiar with your laws. But it would seem equally inappropriate for the ME to stamp and take responsibility for details determined by someone else, if that's the argument.

 

However it is your calculations and sketch details which represent the real "evidence-of-suitability" required by regulations. The ME not being able to produce the evidence themselves has relied on a specialist consultant to provide the necessary evidence, just like an architect. The specification of the product and how it is documented and presented is an entirely different matter. The ME as principal designer for the mechanical systems has done the responsible thing obtained the specialist services, and should have no problem declaring the mechanical systems sufficient-for-purpose or compliant with relevant codes: unless thinks employed an SE who is not competent. The ME should be covered if they retain certified copies of your calculations: stamped and sealed if that's what you do. A certificate or letter uniquely referencing the ME's documents and the relevant details and a statement indicating that they have been checked for seismic requirements, may also be useful.

 

It is no different than the architect: the architect as principal designer is responsible for everything concerned with a building project. If the project is simple there may be no structural drawings, but may be a beam by engineer. The architect clearly indicating that sufficiency of such member is determined by an engineer not the architect. The SE doesn't certify the architect's drawings unless looked at whole of building, or spends all day writing exclusions. The SE simply provides the requested information in an appropriate manner and the architect incorporates into the main documentation in an appropriate manner.

 

A complicated electromechanical project could involve mechanical, electrical and structural engineers with all functions integrated in the one detail. But the whole is different than the sum of its parts, and someone has to be the principal designer: one person who has control and authority over the project and can therefore accept responsibility. No doubt the ME will be supervising the installation of mechanical systems, and the SE probably will not be called upon to inspect: it is thus the ME's domain and they can call the SE if they desire. The contractor certainly won't be calling the SE directly.

 

Also from another perspective the ME consultants, could employ another ME on staff who could do the seismic themselves, but only one of the ME's is responsible for the entire project. Same with SE's, could have large team of SE's on a project, but only one is responsible in charge of the whole project. Each individual SE may however have their name as the designer on individual drawings: the principle SE is responsible for accepting or rejecting that done by the other SE's.

 

So for document control purposes, the ME can provide some box on the drawings identifying the conditions/functions checked by an SE, and the SE can simply sign: and be provided with copies of the signed documents. Then every time mechanical changes occur, the SE will have to check and sign again. Which is not very practical. The ME is responsible for obtaining SE services if they consider such are necessary, and getting reassessment if they consider mechanical changes have an impact on the scope of work performed by the SE. But otherwise has little to do with the SE, and so little value having their name anywhere on the drawings.

 

If you didn't have the licensing, and the stamping and sealing, and were involved with a project that didn't involve any regulatory approval: what then would be the responsible thing to do? Or if as SE you were principle designer for a project and needed some mechanical input: what action would you take? Given your query, I'd hope you wouldn't want the ME to stamp and seal your drawings.

 

(Here in SA we have no licensing: just a requirement for an independent technical check by an independent technical expert, with the regulators permitted to accept a certificate of independent technical expert without question. The important issue is independence: in consequence we reject a lot of stuff from inter-state with licensed engineers who think they are competent enough to self-certify. Only the regulating authority puts any form of stamp and seal on documents.)

Regards

Conrad Harrison

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

mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com

Adelaide

South Australia

 

--
-gm

RE: Mechanical Engineer wants me to stamp his M sheets

Diane

 

Not familiar with your laws. But it would seem equally inappropriate for the ME to stamp and take responsibility for details determined by someone else, if that’s the argument.

 

However it is your calculations and sketch details which represent the real “evidence-of-suitability” required by regulations. The ME not being able to produce the evidence themselves has relied on a specialist consultant to provide the necessary evidence, just like an architect. The specification of the product and how it is documented and presented is an entirely different matter. The ME as principal designer for the mechanical systems has done the responsible thing obtained the specialist services, and should have no problem declaring the mechanical systems sufficient-for-purpose or compliant with relevant codes: unless thinks employed an SE who is not competent. The ME should be covered if they retain certified copies of your calculations: stamped and sealed if that’s what you do. A certificate or letter uniquely referencing the ME’s documents and the relevant details and a statement indicating that they have been checked for seismic requirements, may also be useful.

 

It is no different than the architect: the architect as principal designer is responsible for everything concerned with a building project. If the project is simple there may be no structural drawings, but may be a beam by engineer. The architect clearly indicating that sufficiency of such member is determined by an engineer not the architect. The SE doesn’t certify the architect’s drawings unless looked at whole of building, or spends all day writing exclusions. The SE simply provides the requested information in an appropriate manner and the architect incorporates into the main documentation in an appropriate manner.

 

A complicated electromechanical project could involve mechanical, electrical and structural engineers with all functions integrated in the one detail. But the whole is different than the sum of its parts, and someone has to be the principal designer: one person who has control and authority over the project and can therefore accept responsibility. No doubt the ME will be supervising the installation of mechanical systems, and the SE probably will not be called upon to inspect: it is thus the ME’s domain and they can call the SE if they desire. The contractor certainly won’t be calling the SE directly.

 

Also from another perspective the ME consultants, could employ another ME on staff who could do the seismic themselves, but only one of the ME’s is responsible for the entire project. Same with SE’s, could have large team of SE’s on a project, but only one is responsible in charge of the whole project. Each individual SE may however have their name as the designer on individual drawings: the principle SE is responsible for accepting or rejecting that done by the other SE’s.

 

So for document control purposes, the ME can provide some box on the drawings identifying the conditions/functions checked by an SE, and the SE can simply sign: and be provided with copies of the signed documents. Then every time mechanical changes occur, the SE will have to check and sign again. Which is not very practical. The ME is responsible for obtaining SE services if they consider such are necessary, and getting reassessment if they consider mechanical changes have an impact on the scope of work performed by the SE. But otherwise has little to do with the SE, and so little value having their name anywhere on the drawings.

 

If you didn’t have the licensing, and the stamping and sealing, and were involved with a project that didn’t involve any regulatory approval: what then would be the responsible thing to do? Or if as SE you were principle designer for a project and needed some mechanical input: what action would you take? Given your query, I’d hope you wouldn’t want the ME to stamp and seal your drawings.

 

(Here in SA we have no licensing: just a requirement for an independent technical check by an independent technical expert, with the regulators permitted to accept a certificate of independent technical expert without question. The important issue is independence: in consequence we reject a lot of stuff from inter-state with licensed engineers who think they are competent enough to self-certify. Only the regulating authority puts any form of stamp and seal on documents.)

Regards

Conrad Harrison

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

mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com

Adelaide

South Australia

 

Re: request

David Fisher wrote:

Reinforced concrete in place is typically $300/CY +/- depending on location

And complexity.

Unless it's in a refinery or chemical plant, then it's $750.

Tough call.