Saturday, May 31, 2008

RE: C&C vs MWFRS pressures

Please excuse a delayed jump-start of this thread. This is not a defense
or rebuttal of anything anyone has said except as noted. Also please
excuse if I quote briefly and if context is lacking. No malice intended.
Peace.

Regarding the decision to design a structural member for MWFRS and/or
C&C pressures...

>>As Scott suggests it is the size of the thing, that determines the
choice, >>but not entirely.

I disagree; but not entirely ;). It is the function of a structural
component that determines which pressures should be used. There is
nothing in the Standard that requires this decision to be made based on
size or tributary area or effective wind area. There is only an
exception in the Standard which allows Components and Cladding elements
to be designed using MWFRS pressures if they are over a certain
effective wind area. The existence of this singular stipulation in the
Standard proves this point.

>>I have not followed this from its beginning. But the definition for
C&C >>contained in the ASCE 7-05 Commentary may shed a little light.
Roof >>trusses are specifically cited as an example.

Again, this may seem a bit pedantic, but the text referred to here is
not a definition but is commentary on the definition found in the
Standard. The Standard is state law and the Commentary is not. The
Commentary "is included for information purposes" and is a guide to the
professional and code official. I only say this to defend the authority
of the professional to make the determination we are discussing, not to
undermine the importance and utility of the Commentary. But to address
the specifics of your point, trusses are listed in the Commentary as
examples of components just as they are listed as examples of MWFRS
elements. This does not mean that trusses are always components just as
beams are not always part of the MWFRS such as when a beam is used to
support a glass storefront or wainscot wall.

>>I would design a roof truss for C&C loads, particularly for wind
pressures >>wanting to blow a roof off. The wind pressures act on the
roof sheathing, >>then the roof truss top chord, and finally the truss
bearing. C&C loads >>are about 25% (<--- guess) greater than those
pressures due to main system >>forces...

The same could be said of any element or connection in the MWFRS. Why
stop at the truss bearing? If your answer has something to do with
"size" consider that many wall, beam, and foundation elements commonly
have tributary areas no greater than the common truss they are attached
to. Do you feel similarly obligated to check an artificial load case
where C&C pressures are applied to the entire wall-truss-wall frame?
This might be conservative but doesn't replicate any real-world loading
scenario. BTW, to prove this to yourself, tell me how you would
distribute C&C uplifts to the hold-downs on a 3-point bearing truss? If
you think that distribution by effective wind area based on span is
conservative then you do not understand that reactions on 3-point
bearing trusses are "highly" dependent on the internal stiffness of the
truss and have nothing to do with effective wind area. These are all
MWFRS considerations.

>>But, that fastner would NOT be designed to MWFRS pressures...but a C&C
>>loading for the wind trib area [read "effective wind area"] of THAT
>>fastner

I disagree since the tributary or effective wind area of a roof truss
hold-down fastener has no meaning for a 3-point bearing truss.

>>As I said, the primary difference in practical terms between the MWFRS
and >>C&C pressures in ASCE 7 is the effective wind area of the two

I disagree. The primary distinction of MWFRS pressures is that they
generate a conservative real-world, albeit simplified, load
configuration on the MWFRS. The redundancy, strength reserve with size
degeneracy, and alternate load path available to MWFRS elements and
connections are the reason that MWFRS pressures are appropriate
regardless of "size". Using the typical truss hold-down as an example,
there is no reason to believe that a truss hold-down experiencing a
localized pressure spike would not distribute load to a hold-down with
reserve strength 24", 48" or 72" away rather than be jerked bodily from
the system.

>>The C&C pressures will be greated than MWFRS pressures since for all
>>things being equal, C&C pressures will be greater than the MWFRS
>>pressures. Thus, for a pure uplift case (call it a flat truss to keep
it >>simple), C&C pressures will produce a more overall severe load
reversal on >>a truss then MWFRS pressures.

This is an unnecessary and unrealistic simplification and may not always
be true. The truss hold-down connector is the quintessential example of
a MWFRS element since it is designed using the interaction equation for
uplift and in-plane and out-of-plane shear and sometimes gravity loads.

>>C&C have nothing to do with 'a' distances in ASCE 7 (i.e.
>>localized higher pressures are edges and such)...at least not
directly.

I don't follow you here. The pressure on a component or cladding element
is directly related to it's location in relation to the pressure
coefficient zone 'a'.

>>There are lots of elements of the lateral system that must still be
>>checked/designed with C&C pressures.

I don't disagree. The state of the practice for the typical residential
roof truss is to design truss tails, top chords and gable end webs for
C&C pressures. Hold-downs are designed for MWFRS loads. This decision is
based on the function of the element and not its size.

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

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

AREMA

List ,
I would appreciate any help in the following:
 I am trying to find out if according to AREMA tensile stresses
are allowed (particularly under load combinations including temperature gradients
and support settlements)for post-tensioned R/R concrete bridges.
Best Regards
J.N.Sigalas
P.S  From what I show in a book the relevant paragraphs are 17.6.4 and the likes.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Re: 22H7 Joists

Jared -
  Per the SJI's 50-Year Digest (1971 Load Tables):

TL = 373 plf
LL = 332 plf (LL deflection = 1/360 of span)
M = 526,000 in-lbs
R = 5,600 lbs (max end reaction)
Weight = 10.7 plf

Note that load values are listed above the "blue line" which states that loads are governed by shear.

HTH,
Charlie canitz
Annapolis, MD


-----Original Message-----
From: Jared Keyser <jkeyser@lcmf.com>
To: Seaint@seaint.org <Seaint@seaint.org>
Sent: Fri, 30 May 2008 9:34 pm
Subject: 22H7 Joists

Can anyone provide me with the SJI table capacity for a 22H7 joist spanning 30  feet.  TIA,  Jared   ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** *   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  ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********  

22H7 Joists

Can anyone provide me with the SJI table capacity for a 22H7 joist spanning 30 feet.

TIA,

Jared


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

Cold Formed Steel 97 UBC to 06 IBC


From: David Garza <garzastreng@yahoo.com>

To fellow engineers, there are a few seminars about Cold Formed Steel dealing with 97 UBC to 06 IBC in California.
Click on this link  http://www.cfsei.org/west.htm or copy it and paste it to your web browser.

RE: Tale 6-1 of ASCE 7-05

That and the wind speed maps are kind of "wonky" and "jiggered" to work with
the importance factor and the combination of hurricane zones and
non-hurricane zones. I am offering this based upon the fact that there are
discussions about going to three different wind speed maps for different
importance factors/levels/occupancy types.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: chris.slater@gmail.com [mailto:chris.slater@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Chris Slater
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 2:42 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Tale 6-1 of ASCE 7-05


This is a guess, but hopefully a logical one.

Since wind loads are a function of V squared, and since Category I buildings
are just storage and Ag buildings, it seems likely that they're giving a
break in the Importance factor for those buildings in the higher wind areas
to reduce the overall outcome of the calculation.

The calculated loads will still be higher in the V > 100 mph areas, since
they will be a function of V squared.

Hope that makes sense...

Chris

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Casey K. Hemmatyar <khemmatyar@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Is anyone familiar with the logic behind the coefficients 0.87 and
> 0.77 in Tale 6-1 (page 77) of ASCE 7-05? The Importance Factor "I" for
> Hurricane Prone Regions with V>100 mph is 0.77.
> While for Non-Hurricane Prone Regions & Hurricane Prone Regions with V<100
> mph, it is 0.87.
>
> Regards
>
> Casey (Khashayar) Hemmatyar, SE
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

Please do accept many appologies. I mean no offense. I want to say that to visualize 200 tons of masonry water fountain. Which also cause extreme earthquake overturn loadings. I was hoping you to explain such fountain with massive off center loads. My questions were only meant to provoke the beginning dialogue of this fountain design.

On 5/30/08, Bill Allen <t.w.allen@cox.net> wrote:

D E –

 

It's not a uniform pressure; it's a trapezoidal pressure.

 

I've been doing this a long time. Don't worry; the numbers are right.

 

Regards,

 

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

-----Original Message-----
From: D E [mailto:struktur.dle@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 1:37 PM
To:
seaint@seaint.org

Subject: Re: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

 

Sounds like your soils allowables are close to, if not over, the limit. I just wanted to point out that a 29'x22.5' map with a 700psf soil pressure gives a weight of cmu of 29'x22.5'x700psf=456,000 lbs of masonry. That is a lot of masonry. The 1300psf under lateral seems really high too. Things to check: What is your weight of masonry? What is the vertical center of gravity of cmu? what is your allowable base shear coefficient?

 


Re: Tale 6-1 of ASCE 7-05

This is a guess, but hopefully a logical one.

Since wind loads are a function of V squared, and since Category I
buildings are just storage and Ag buildings, it seems likely that
they're giving a break in the Importance factor for those buildings in
the higher wind areas to reduce the overall outcome of the
calculation.

The calculated loads will still be higher in the V > 100 mph areas,
since they will be a function of V squared.

Hope that makes sense...

Chris

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Casey K. Hemmatyar
<khemmatyar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is anyone familiar with the logic behind the coefficients 0.87 and 0.77 in
> Tale 6-1 (page 77) of ASCE 7-05?
> The Importance Factor "I" for Hurricane Prone Regions with V>100 mph is
> 0.77.
> While for Non-Hurricane Prone Regions & Hurricane Prone Regions with V<100
> mph, it is 0.87.
>
> Regards
>
> Casey (Khashayar) Hemmatyar, SE
>

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

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

Tale 6-1 of ASCE 7-05


Is anyone familiar with the logic behind the coefficients 0.87 and 0.77 in Tale 6-1 (page 77) of ASCE 7-05?
The Importance Factor "I" for Hurricane Prone Regions with V>100 mph is 0.77.
While for Non-Hurricane Prone Regions & Hurricane Prone Regions with V<100 mph, it is 0.87.

Regards

Casey (Khashayar) Hemmatyar, SE

RE: Power Plants

That is a lot of information to obtain.  Good starting points: 
 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers:
http://www.ieee.org/portal/site
They develop the standards like the IEEE 693

American Public Power Plant Association:
http://www.appanet.org/
 
Electric Power Research Institute:
http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt
 
For some of the information you requested, you will have to go to the vendors. 

Regards,
Harold Sprague



Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:09:40 -0700
From: gmse4603@gmail.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Power Plants

Anyone know where there is a good online summary of things involving powerplants, substations and the like.

I'm currently interested in getting info related to High-voltage cable weights, bend radii, clamping devices, connectors/splice, isolators (for seismic) etc...

tia,
-gm


E-mail for the greater good. Join the i'm Initiative from Microsoft.

RE: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

D E –

 

It’s not a uniform pressure; it’s a trapezoidal pressure.

 

I’ve been doing this a long time. Don’t worry; the numbers are right.

 

Regards,

 

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

-----Original Message-----
From: D E [mailto:struktur.dle@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 1:37 PM
To:
seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

 

Sounds like your soils allowables are close to, if not over, the limit. I just wanted to point out that a 29'x22.5' map with a 700psf soil pressure gives a weight of cmu of 29'x22.5'x700psf=456,000 lbs of masonry. That is a lot of masonry. The 1300psf under lateral seems really high too. Things to check: What is your weight of masonry? What is the vertical center of gravity of cmu? what is your allowable base shear coefficient?

 

Power Plants

Anyone know where there is a good online summary of things involving powerplants, substations and the like.

I'm currently interested in getting info related to High-voltage cable weights, bend radii, clamping devices, connectors/splice, isolators (for seismic) etc...

tia,
-gm

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Re: Pin Connected Members

On May 29, 2008, at 4:59 PM, Garner, Robert wrote:
> What is the purpose of these minimum dimensions?
Which minimums are you talking about? And what sort of calculations
are you using to make the stresses 'calculate OK' As near as I can
tell from some FEA work I've done, they're to keep you from adding
material that isn't effective or complicating the stress calculation.
The actual stress distribution in a pinned connection is very
complicated to reproduce manually. It's easy to do with FEA except
that the resulting profile shows very high peak and secondary
stresses for which the AISC has no criteria and which the average
designer has a tough time interpreting. As one example most of the
load is carried within 1 hole diameter or less on each side of the
hole; There's a temptation to decrease the net stress by using a
wider bar: A wider bar makes the average stress--load/net area--go
down but not the actual stress, since the added material isn't
working. Conversely, since the stress concentration around the edge
of the hole isn't accounted for in the AISC design methodology. What
may seem like a suitable section on the basis of the average net
stress ends up with an unacceptably high local stress, which you
wouldn't see except perhaps with an FEA model.

> Can we deviate from these minimum dimensions if the stresses
> calculate O.K?
The short answer to your question is no--the Code language uses
'shall' in specifying minimum dimensions, meaning they are mandatory.
You'd be sticking your neck indefensibly far out by taking exception
to the stated good practice for such connections.

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: MS/PHD, where to study

Richard Hess put it best, put that theory to some practical tests.

Dr Seuss aside, I could not agree more. We hired an intern for the summer so this has been an eye opener for him and for us, I thought it was just last year I graduated but then I realized, damn, I got old and now I am in my tenth year of being an engineer and I am training me TEN years ago...  And this kid is a good student, and had an internship, knows numbers, knows CAD, and I verbally told him something to put on the drawings, and I was redlining and read "ALL DASH THREAD RODS". Kid is smart but this real life stuff is all new to him. He said he wanted to get his MS when he came here but now he has second thoughts. I tell him go for it, or maybe get some experience first, or maybe come and work for us part time and go to school part time.... 
 
If I had to do it all over again, I am not sure if would have stayed to get my Masters or not (I have no plans to go back now). There were some personal reasons for not staying in school longer, plus I wanted a real paycheck. I would DEFINITELY take a step back before your PhD and go work for a year or two. That PhD and the scholarship will probably still be there for you. But wives, kids, house payments and stuff can creep up on you during that time period, so that is something to consider. With all due respect to my professors, I would have wanted some of them to get more practical experience before teaching. Accademia breeds theory and research which we need, but we also need the praciticality of our profession like Richard said, someone has to build these things we design and we have to tell them on our drawings.
 
For what it is worth, the principals of my last two firms had BS degrees from regular universties (not MIT, Ga Tech, CA schools, etc.), and they were good engineers and very knowledgeable and did high rise design. I think engineering degrees are like getting a bunch of power tools and some instruction manuals, and you can probably use them a little bit; then you show up at the site on day one and you look at a pile of lumber and realize you don't have a clue on where to begin. You learn that on the job, and quickly...
 
From what people on this list have told me, if you know wind you can learn seismic, after all it is structural engineering.... I know enough seismic to make myself dangerous if I were to sit down and try to do design. There are other pains in the butt like IBC, FEMA, ductility, spectral response, California reviewers checking every calculation, etc, but lateral loads are lateral loads in the end. I would also think in your studies during your MS and PhD you will get plenty of exposure to both if you choose. Also, if you go work for a big firm anywhere in the US (whether California, New York, Florida), you will likely be doing high rise or large, complicated structures like stadiums, theaters, musems, etc. Your projects may be anywhere in the US or internationally, especially with government or militiary jobs.
 
Plus who is to say you will not marry some gorgeous girl and she insists on moving you to ________, or you may change your mind in the future. So I think well rounded knowledge is the first step, then practical experience. Even if you focused on wind just take some seismic classes too and you would be fine anywhere you go. With a MS or PhD and some practical knowledge you will always have a job, I sure hope!
 
No matter what you are not painting yourself into a corner in my opinion. Scott gave some great advice too, things like finances ALWAYS play into your decisions...
 
Good luck!
 
Andrew
 
 
Andrew Kester, P.E.
Principal/Project Manager
ADK Structural Engineering, PLLC
1510 E. Colonial Ave., Suite 301
Orlando, FL 32803

Re: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

Yeah, don't forget the time history analysis... :-)

-gm

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Bill Allen <t.w.allen@cox.net> wrote:

Gerard –

 

That's funny.

 

Are you referring to my Q=P(1+6e/L)/(W*L) model?

 

Soil supports? I don't need no stinking soil supports!

:o) :o)

 

If so, I guess I could change it to:

 

Q= P(1+6e/L)/(W*L')

Where L' is less than L by the ineffective with of mat in contact with the soil due to the pipe (say 12"-15" or so).

 

Regards,

 

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmse4603@gmail.com]
Sent:
Thursday, May 29, 2008 12:00 PM
To:
seaint@seaint.org

Subject: Re: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

 

In your mat foundation model, you may want to remove the soil supports

 


anchor software

Does anyone have experience with or an opinion on Dimensional Solutions anchor software titled DSanchor?

 

TIA

 

Mark D. Baker

 

 

 

 

 

RE: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

Told it was me being dumb and just "missing it".  :-)
 
Scott
Adrian, MI
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen [mailto:t.w.allen@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 2:13 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

To protect the pipe during the placement of wet concrete.

 

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

-----Original Message-----
From:
Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
Sent:
Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:18 AM
To:
seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

 

I am not sure how you are envisioning the plywood bridge working, but that is probably me just missing it.

 

 

Pin Connected Members

AISC specification Section D5 and Commentary Section D.5 stipulate minimum dimensions for pin-connected members.  Following these minimum dimensions can result in pin-connected members far stronger than they need to be. 

 

What is the purpose of these minimum dimensions?

 

Can we deviate from these minimum dimensions if the stresses calculate O.K?

 

 

Thank you for your assistance.

 

Bob Garner, S.E.

 

R. Garner

Moffatt & Nichol

Tel.:  (619) 220-6050

Fax.: (619) 220-6055

e-mail: rgarner@moffattnichol.com

 

Re: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

Sounds like your soils allowables are close to, if not over, the limit. I just wanted to point out that a 29'x22.5' map with a 700psf soil pressure gives a weight of cmu of 29'x22.5'x700psf=456,000 lbs of masonry. That is a lot of masonry. The 1300psf under lateral seems really high too. Things to check: What is your weight of masonry? What is the vertical center of gravity of cmu? what is your allowable base shear coefficient?

On 5/29/08, Gerard Madden, SE <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:
In your mat foundation model, you may want to remove the soil supports for a certain distance on either side of the pipe run and see how the forces re-distribute in the mat per Scott's concerns. You may want to add some bars in the mat to bridge the ineffective region of soil.

Your soil pressures are low, but without the soils report, you may get nailed if you get over 1333 psf seismic.

-gm


On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Gordin <sgordin@sgeconsulting.com> wrote:
Bill,
 
I would suspect that a "10 inch diameter drain line" would have at least some traffic rating.  If so, such rating would easily allow soil pressures about 1,000 PSF. 
 
Styrofoam above the pipe will only redistribute pressures into the soil and into the mat.  As a result, the lateral pressures on the pipe may increase.  Placing Styrofoam on the sides of the pipe will increase the "span" etc.
 
It may be worth investigating if the drain line has traffic rating.  If it does not, it may be worth encapsulating the pipe into a continuos concrete "arch", say, 6" min. thick, no or nominal reinforcement  There is nothing to loose.   I doubt that it will require special wood "bridging" (36" thick layer of wet concrete creates pressure of only 450 PSF).  The additional cost will be close to nothing.  The pipe will be more durable, and if it would ever become damaged/clogged, it will have to be abandoned to avoid damage to the "water fixture."
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
 
       
  
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Allen
To: Seaint
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 09:33
Subject: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

 

Dear Colleagues:

 

I have a small mat foundation supporting a masonry water feature. The mat is 29 ft. x 22.50 ft. For static load cases, the maximum actual soil bearing pressure is about 700 PSF. For lateral load cases, the maximum soil pressure is approximately 1,300 PSF. The mat is 15" thick and is reinforced with #5 bars at 7" and is 4" below top of finish surface (bottom is at -19 inches). There is no geotechnical engineer on this project. This project is located in Southern California (Orange County) and was permitted under the 2001 CBC.

 

During construction, it was discovered that there is an existing 10 inch diameter drain line running through the area of the mat foundation. For various reasons, it is desired not to relocate the drain unless absolutely necessary. The drain line is located 24" below grade. I believe this is to the top of the pipe, but I need to verify this.

 

I'm thinking that I could specify a layer of Styrofoam on top of the pipe to prevent it from crushing. Alternatively, I could specify a small plywood "bridge" over the pipe. This plywood bridge would be supported by a 2x12 installed vertically on either side of the pipe. Maybe I haven't looked at this problem long enough, but I don't see that this will adversely affect the stresses in the mat foundation nor significantly affect the soil bearing pressures which would affect the geotechnical performance of the foundation.

 

Is this really not a big deal or should I do something to address the issue?

 

TIA,

 

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

 



RE: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

Gerard –

 

That’s funny.

 

Are you referring to my Q=P(1+6e/L)/(W*L) model?

 

Soil supports? I don’t need no stinking soil supports!

:o) :o)

 

If so, I guess I could change it to:

 

Q= P(1+6e/L)/(W*L’)

Where L’ is less than L by the ineffective with of mat in contact with the soil due to the pipe (say 12”-15” or so).

 

Regards,

 

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmse4603@gmail.com]
Sent:
Thursday, May 29, 2008 12:00 PM
To:
seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

 

In your mat foundation model, you may want to remove the soil supports

 

Re: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

In your mat foundation model, you may want to remove the soil supports for a certain distance on either side of the pipe run and see how the forces re-distribute in the mat per Scott's concerns. You may want to add some bars in the mat to bridge the ineffective region of soil.

Your soil pressures are low, but without the soils report, you may get nailed if you get over 1333 psf seismic.

-gm

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Gordin <sgordin@sgeconsulting.com> wrote:
Bill,
 
I would suspect that a "10 inch diameter drain line" would have at least some traffic rating.  If so, such rating would easily allow soil pressures about 1,000 PSF. 
 
Styrofoam above the pipe will only redistribute pressures into the soil and into the mat.  As a result, the lateral pressures on the pipe may increase.  Placing Styrofoam on the sides of the pipe will increase the "span" etc.
 
It may be worth investigating if the drain line has traffic rating.  If it does not, it may be worth encapsulating the pipe into a continuos concrete "arch", say, 6" min. thick, no or nominal reinforcement  There is nothing to loose.   I doubt that it will require special wood "bridging" (36" thick layer of wet concrete creates pressure of only 450 PSF).  The additional cost will be close to nothing.  The pipe will be more durable, and if it would ever become damaged/clogged, it will have to be abandoned to avoid damage to the "water fixture."
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
 
       
  
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Allen
To: Seaint
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 09:33
Subject: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

Dear Colleagues:

 

I have a small mat foundation supporting a masonry water feature. The mat is 29 ft. x 22.50 ft. For static load cases, the maximum actual soil bearing pressure is about 700 PSF. For lateral load cases, the maximum soil pressure is approximately 1,300 PSF. The mat is 15" thick and is reinforced with #5 bars at 7" and is 4" below top of finish surface (bottom is at -19 inches). There is no geotechnical engineer on this project. This project is located in Southern California (Orange County) and was permitted under the 2001 CBC.

 

During construction, it was discovered that there is an existing 10 inch diameter drain line running through the area of the mat foundation. For various reasons, it is desired not to relocate the drain unless absolutely necessary. The drain line is located 24" below grade. I believe this is to the top of the pipe, but I need to verify this.

 

I'm thinking that I could specify a layer of Styrofoam on top of the pipe to prevent it from crushing. Alternatively, I could specify a small plywood "bridge" over the pipe. This plywood bridge would be supported by a 2x12 installed vertically on either side of the pipe. Maybe I haven't looked at this problem long enough, but I don't see that this will adversely affect the stresses in the mat foundation nor significantly affect the soil bearing pressures which would affect the geotechnical performance of the foundation.

 

Is this really not a big deal or should I do something to address the issue?

 

TIA,

 

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

 


Re: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

Bill,
 
I would suspect that a "10 inch diameter drain line" would have at least some traffic rating.  If so, such rating would easily allow soil pressures about 1,000 PSF. 
 
Styrofoam above the pipe will only redistribute pressures into the soil and into the mat.  As a result, the lateral pressures on the pipe may increase.  Placing Styrofoam on the sides of the pipe will increase the "span" etc.
 
It may be worth investigating if the drain line has traffic rating.  If it does not, it may be worth encapsulating the pipe into a continuos concrete "arch", say, 6" min. thick, no or nominal reinforcement  There is nothing to loose.   I doubt that it will require special wood "bridging" (36" thick layer of wet concrete creates pressure of only 450 PSF).  The additional cost will be close to nothing.  The pipe will be more durable, and if it would ever become damaged/clogged, it will have to be abandoned to avoid damage to the "water fixture."
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
 
       
  
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Allen
To: Seaint
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 09:33
Subject: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

Dear Colleagues:

 

I have a small mat foundation supporting a masonry water feature. The mat is 29 ft. x 22.50 ft. For static load cases, the maximum actual soil bearing pressure is about 700 PSF. For lateral load cases, the maximum soil pressure is approximately 1,300 PSF. The mat is 15" thick and is reinforced with #5 bars at 7" and is 4" below top of finish surface (bottom is at -19 inches). There is no geotechnical engineer on this project. This project is located in Southern California (Orange County) and was permitted under the 2001 CBC.

 

During construction, it was discovered that there is an existing 10 inch diameter drain line running through the area of the mat foundation. For various reasons, it is desired not to relocate the drain unless absolutely necessary. The drain line is located 24" below grade. I believe this is to the top of the pipe, but I need to verify this.

 

I'm thinking that I could specify a layer of Styrofoam on top of the pipe to prevent it from crushing. Alternatively, I could specify a small plywood "bridge" over the pipe. This plywood bridge would be supported by a 2x12 installed vertically on either side of the pipe. Maybe I haven't looked at this problem long enough, but I don't see that this will adversely affect the stresses in the mat foundation nor significantly affect the soil bearing pressures which would affect the geotechnical performance of the foundation.

 

Is this really not a big deal or should I do something to address the issue?

 

TIA,

 

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

 

Re: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

Bill, Scott,
 
        I don't really think you have a problem at all.
 
        However, if you do have a problem it will not likely be crushing of the pipe; it will likely be settlement of the whole system.  This would cause the pipe to break (shear failure of the pipe) at one or both edges of the mat when the mat (and the pipe below it) settles and the pipe beyond the subject area does not settle.  I do not think this could happen with any type of metal pipe (cast iron or steel) under the loads you have indicated.  It could possibly happen with clay tile or similar low strength pipe.  Crushing of the pipe could only happen if the soil below and beside the pipe was not adequately compacted during installation, in which case it will probably happen regardless of weather or not you build your water feature.
 
        In any case, using any type of Styrofoam would be a waste of money.  Even the white polystyrene beadboard has a compressive strength of 10 psi (1440 psf) which is much too strong to compress under the loads being considered.  For a real Cadillac solution your bridge solution could work but there is a less expensive alternative.  In Canada we use a lot of material known as "voidform".  This voidform consists of waxed corrugated cardboard and is available in sheets 2", 3", or 4" thick like plywood.  The stuff is strong and durable enough to support fresh concrete until after the initial set then it gradually takes on water and disintegrates leaving a void.
 
        I hope this information is of use to you.
 
Regards,
 
H. Daryl Richardson
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

I would think that as long as what ever is between the bottom of the slab and the top of the pipe will compress some without attracting too much load (i.e. it is not stiffer material that the adjacent soil), then it should not be an issue.  It would mainly be an issue if you had similar compressible material (i.e. same soil) but with the "hard spot" (i.e. the pipe) under it OR if the slab sat direction on the pipe.  If the slab/mat can settle without compressing some material (say the styrofoam) such that much load transfers through the material to the pipe, then you should be good.  Thus, I could see a solution like styrofoam working.  I am not sure how you are envisioning the plywood bridge working, but that is probably me just missing it.
 
To me the issue is more about the pipe crushing than affecting the mat performance.  The mat should be able to easily span over a 10" "soft spot" from the pipe line if you go with the compressible material option.
 
HTH,
 
Scott
Adrian, MI
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen [mailto:t.w.allen@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 12:34 PM
To: Seaint
Subject: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

Dear Colleagues:

 

I have a small mat foundation supporting a masonry water feature. The mat is 29 ft. x 22.50 ft. For static load cases, the maximum actual soil bearing pressure is about 700 PSF. For lateral load cases, the maximum soil pressure is approximately 1,300 PSF. The mat is 15" thick and is reinforced with #5 bars at 7" and is 4" below top of finish surface (bottom is at -19 inches). There is no geotechnical engineer on this project. This project is located in Southern California (Orange County) and was permitted under the 2001 CBC.

 

During construction, it was discovered that there is an existing 10 inch diameter drain line running through the area of the mat foundation. For various reasons, it is desired not to relocate the drain unless absolutely necessary. The drain line is located 24" below grade. I believe this is to the top of the pipe, but I need to verify this.

 

I'm thinking that I could specify a layer of Styrofoam on top of the pipe to prevent it from crushing. Alternatively, I could specify a small plywood "bridge" over the pipe. This plywood bridge would be supported by a 2x12 installed vertically on either side of the pipe. Maybe I haven't looked at this problem long enough, but I don't see that this will adversely affect the stresses in the mat foundation nor significantly affect the soil bearing pressures which would affect the geotechnical performance of the foundation.

 

Is this really not a big deal or should I do something to address the issue?

 

TIA,

 

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

 

RE: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

To protect the pipe during the placement of wet concrete.

 

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

-----Original Message-----
From:
Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
Sent:
Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:18 AM
To:
seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

 

I am not sure how you are envisioning the plywood bridge working, but that is probably me just missing it.

 

 

RE: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

Bill,
 
The Styrofoam solution sounds much better than burying 2x12 lumber and plywood under the masonry water feature.
 
It sounds like you're designing a reflection pool or swimming pool structure with significant loads. The reason to cover the pipe with a compressible material is to keep the weight from bearing on the pipe, right? You say the pipe is 24" below the mat. You'll probably dig most of the dirt off the top of it to remove the compacted soil fill. The trench could be dug square over the top of the pipe. If it's 24" deep then 24" of Styrofoam should absorb any settlement and compaction. The rough trench could be refilled around the square Styrofoam block layers with sand or dirt.
 
An alternate material that's easy to work with might be loose perlight or vermiculite, which is available in large bags from a garden nursery supply or light-weight aggregate supply source. Styrofoam could be used on top in conjunction with the perlight material to keep the concrete out of the perlight. Or just cover the trench with plastic for the pour.
 
The wood bridge is a bad idea, in my opinion. The wood will rot and degrade in a few years. That would allow soil redistribution into the trench and possibly uneven settlement. I don't like to leave wood in the ground for several reasons, even in dry Southern California.
 
Dave Gaines
(626) 794-4117 home
(626) 410-3631 cell
 
Photo Gallery at:


From: Bill Allen [mailto:t.w.allen@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:34 AM
To: Seaint
Subject: Protection of Drain Pipe Under Mat Foundation

Dear Colleagues:

 

I have a small mat foundation supporting a masonry water feature. The mat is 29 ft. x 22.50 ft. For static load cases, the maximum actual soil bearing pressure is about 700 PSF. For lateral load cases, the maximum soil pressure is approximately 1,300 PSF. The mat is 15” thick and is reinforced with #5 bars at 7” and is 4” below top of finish surface (bottom is at -19 inches). There is no geotechnical engineer on this project. This project is located in Southern California (Orange County) and was permitted under the 2001 CBC.

 

During construction, it was discovered that there is an existing 10 inch diameter drain line running through the area of the mat foundation. For various reasons, it is desired not to relocate the drain unless absolutely necessary. The drain line is located 24” below grade. I believe this is to the top of the pipe, but I need to verify this.

 

I’m thinking that I could specify a layer of Styrofoam on top of the pipe to prevent it from crushing. Alternatively, I could specify a small plywood “bridge” over the pipe. This plywood bridge would be supported by a 2x12 installed vertically on either side of the pipe. Maybe I haven’t looked at this problem long enough, but I don’t see that this will adversely affect the stresses in the mat foundation nor significantly affect the soil bearing pressures which would affect the geotechnical performance of the foundation.

 

Is this really not a big deal or should I do something to address the issue?

 

TIA,

 

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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