Structural Engineering: 2008-06-29

Friday, July 4, 2008

Duane, Blodgett & Timoshenko

Happy July 4th to all of you and greetings from India!

It's heartwarming to hear abut these legends (Timoshenko, Blodgett, Bresler, Lin Scalzi and so many others)

Their books were my bible during my professional working years (1974 to 2000)

I still have a copy of their books reverently placed in my bookshelf and wouldn't part with them for any price.

Regards

Vish

I attended a night-time presentation by Omer Blodgett in Toronto
approximately 35 years ago. It had been advertised amongst the
engineering community and was presented in a large hotel conference
room. The room was packed-standing room only and I would have guessed
there were 500 attendees. It says something for his stature.
Gary

Harold Sprague wrote:
> You should have encountered Omer Blodgett.
>
> The guy who taught Duane was Omer Blodgett. Omer is a great teacher
> and Duane a great student and now Duane is a great teacher himself.
>
> The last I knew, Omer still showed up at Lincoln for work every now
> and then. I believe that he is about 90 years old. I took a welding
> class from Omer Blodgett, Duane Miller, and the late James Lincoln,
> Jr. in about 1977.
>
> It was an amazing experience.
>
> Regards,
> Harold Sprague
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Duane Miller
> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:15:19 -0600
> From: GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com
> To: seaint@seaint.org
>
>
> A couple weeks ago I attended an AISC seminar in Bozeman, MT called
> "Listen to the Steel: Duane Miller on Welding." Mr. Miller works at
> Lincoln Electric, and is the most knowledgeable person about
> everything welding I have encountered. Very well presented,
> incredibly informative. If anyone's looking for development hours,
> this one is highly recommended.
>
> Gordon Goodell
>
>
> *ExchangeDefender* Message Security: Check Authenticity
> <http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=m63LBquC022478&from=gordongoodell@harmonydesigninc.com>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enter the Zune-A-Day Giveaway for your chance to win — day after day
> after day Enter Now!
> <http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/ZuneADay/?locale=en-US&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Mobile_Zune_V1>

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

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

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Re: Duane Miller

Harold,

When I started building my library here, I bought two manuals by Omer Blogett (I think, it was on your advice). I was pretty sure Mr. Blogett at the time was as much a historical legend as Timoshenko.

At a certain point, however, I called Lincoln Electric for a consultation, and, to my complete amazement, was directed to Omer Blogett. I called him more than once after that, and he even signed his books for me.

When I started designing bridges, I asked for his advice for literature in this field. He mailed me copies of several pages from Chapter 13 of "Design of Steel Structures", including that of the first page with the signatures of all authors (Bresler, T.Y. Lin, and Scalzi).

Each time we talked, he appeared not only a very bright person and an exceptional engineer, but also a real gentleman.

V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA

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

From: Harold Sprague

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 15:53

Subject: RE: Duane Miller

You should have encountered Omer Blodgett.

The guy who taught Duane was Omer Blodgett. Omer is a great teacher and Duane a great student and now Duane is a great teacher himself.

The last I knew, Omer still showed up at Lincoln for work every now and then. I believe that he is about 90 years old. I took a welding class from Omer Blodgett, Duane Miller, and the late James Lincoln, Jr. in about 1977.

It was an amazing experience.

Regards,
Harold Sprague

Subject: Duane Miller
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:15:19 -0600
From: GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

A couple weeks ago I attended an AISC seminar in Bozeman, MT called "Listen to the Steel: Duane Miller on Welding." Mr. Miller works at Lincoln Electric, and is the most knowledgeable person about everything welding I have encountered. Very well presented, incredibly informative. If anyone's looking for development hours, this one is highly recommended.

Gordon Goodell

ExchangeDefender Message Security: Check Authenticity

Enter the Zune-A-Day Giveaway for your chance to win — day after day after day Enter Now!

RE: Duane Miller

You should have encountered Omer Blodgett.

The guy who taught Duane was Omer Blodgett. Omer is a great teacher and Duane a great student and now Duane is a great teacher himself.

The last I knew, Omer still showed up at Lincoln for work every now and then. I believe that he is about 90 years old. I took a welding class from Omer Blodgett, Duane Miller, and the late James Lincoln, Jr. in about 1977.

It was an amazing experience.

Regards,
Harold Sprague

Subject: Duane Miller
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:15:19 -0600
From: GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

A couple weeks ago I attended an AISC seminar in Bozeman, MT called "Listen to the Steel: Duane Miller on Welding." Mr. Miller works at Lincoln Electric, and is the most knowledgeable person about everything welding I have encountered. Very well presented, incredibly informative. If anyone's looking for development hours, this one is highly recommended.

Gordon Goodell

ExchangeDefender Message Security: Check Authenticity

Enter the Zune-A-Day Giveaway for your chance to win — day after day after day Enter Now!

Re: Duane Miller

I had a privilege of attending Duane Miller's seminar on welding; I also got a professional consultation from him. I would say that even without the PDH considerations, Duane Miller's presentations are a must to anybody involved in welding design.

V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA

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

From: Gordon Goodell

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 14:15

Subject: Duane Miller

A couple weeks ago I attended an AISC seminar in Bozeman, MT called "Listen to the Steel: Duane Miller on Welding." Mr. Miller works at Lincoln Electric, and is the most knowledgeable person about everything welding I have encountered. Very well presented, incredibly informative. If anyone's looking for development hours, this one is highly recommended.

Gordon Goodell

ExchangeDefender Message Security: Check Authenticity

Duane Miller

A couple weeks ago I attended an AISC seminar in Bozeman, MT called “Listen to the Steel: Duane Miller on Welding.” Mr. Miller works at Lincoln Electric, and is the most knowledgeable person about everything welding I have encountered. Very well presented, incredibly informative. If anyone’s looking for development hours, this one is highly recommended.

Gordon Goodell

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

RE: seaint Digest for 1 Jul 2008

Bill / Scott -

RISABase has not been "officially" updated to the new steel codes yet.
However, we are "Beta" testing the version 2.0 release right now.

Actually, we're not planning on having the final release until the fall.
Therefore, this should technically be termed an "alpha" test release. We are
sending it out to select customers who are desperate for the updates....
especially those who want to see the anchor bolt pullout capacity stuff.

Sincerely,

Josh Plummer, SE

RISA Technologies
joshp@risatech.com
(949) 951-5815 (voice)
(949) 951-5848 (fax)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Polhemus <bill@polhemus.cc>
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: SOFTWARE: Recommend Steel Column Base Plate Design Program (AISC)?

I do not seem to be able to identify anything that isn't about ten years
old or so, and updated with the latest design provisions.

Anyone have anything to recommend?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Scott Maxwell" <smaxwell@umich.edu>
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Subject: RE: SOFTWARE: Recommend Steel Column Base Plate Design Program
(AISC)?

I have used RISABase (http://www.risatech.com/risabase.asp) in a past life.
It is not completely clear if it has been updated from the version that I
used about 8 years ago or not. If you have not already looked into it, it
might be worth an email to them to see where things stand.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

Re: IRC - Min. Anchor Bolt Spacing

Has the CBC not modified the IBC during adoption
to use the older standard of 5/8" bolts?

Do any of you know if any local municipalities
have adopted the code with the modification to
use the larger bolts?

Take Care,
Lloyd Pack

On 1 Jul 2008 at 16:26, Steve Gordin wrote:

>
> Stan,
>
> It's 1/2"x7" at 6' minimum now.
>
> V. Steve Gordin, SE
> Irvine CA
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: sscholl2@juno.com
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 15:44
> Subject: Re: IRC - Min. Anchor Bolt Spacing
>
> For about the past 5 years we have had to use 5/8" x 10" AB @ 4'
oc.
> Stan Scholl, P.E. Laguna Beach, CA
>
>
>
________________________________________________________
____
> Find precision scales that can weigh anything. Click now!

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

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Re: IRC - Min. Anchor Bolt Spacing

Stan,

It's 1/2"x7" at 6' minimum now.

V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA

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

From: sscholl2@juno.com

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 15:44

Subject: Re: IRC - Min. Anchor Bolt Spacing

For about the past 5 years we have had to use 5/8" x 10" AB @ 4' oc.

Stan Scholl, P.E.

Laguna Beach, CA

____________________________________________________________
Find precision scales that can weigh anything. Click now!

Re: IRC - Min. Anchor Bolt Spacing

For about the past 5 years we have had to use 5/8" x 10" AB @ 4' oc.

Stan Scholl, P.E.

Laguna Beach, CA

RE: SOFTWARE: Recommend Steel Column Base Plate Design Program (AISC)?

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill@polhemus.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 12:34 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: SOFTWARE: Recommend Steel Column Base Plate Design Program (AISC)?

I do not seem to be able to identify anything that isn't about ten years
old or so, and updated with the latest design provisions.

Anyone have anything to recommend?

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

Re: SOFTWARE: Recommend Steel Column Base Plate Design Program (AISC)?

Writing my own spreadsheet was the best course of action for me.

-gm

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Bill Polhemus <bill@polhemus.cc> wrote:

I do not seem to be able to identify anything that isn't about ten years old or so, and updated with the latest design provisions.

Anyone have anything to recommend?

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

SOFTWARE: Recommend Steel Column Base Plate Design Program (AISC)?

I do not seem to be able to identify anything that isn't about ten years
old or so, and updated with the latest design provisions.

Anyone have anything to recommend?

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

RE: IRC - Min. Anchor Bolt Spacing

You might look at the 2007 Florida Residential Code. It is free online. The 2006 IRC is the base code and deviations from the base document are indicated by margin bars.

I doubt the spec you are looking for has been changed.

http://www2.iccsafe.org/states/2004_florida_codes/

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: David Maynard [mailto:d_maynard@wester-wetstein.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:16 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: IRC - Min. Anchor Bolt Spacing

I’m still waiting for my IRC to come in the mail. Hopefully someone here can help.

Could someone tell me what the minimum anchor bolt size and spacing is for a one-story residence?

The IBC minimum is ½” diam. Anchor at 6’-0”. Is this the same in the IRC?

Thanks for the input.

Sincerely,

David Maynard, PE

Wester-Wetstein & Associates, Inc.

201 Lakeway Rd. Suite 1000

Gillette, WY 82718

Phone: (307)686-1125

Fax: (307)686-1158

IRC - Min. Anchor Bolt Spacing

I’m still waiting for my IRC to come in the mail. Hopefully someone here can help.

Could someone tell me what the minimum anchor bolt size and spacing is for a one-story residence?

The IBC minimum is ½” diam. Anchor at 6’-0”. Is this the same in the IRC?

Thanks for the input.

Sincerely,

David Maynard, PE

Wester-Wetstein & Associates, Inc.

201 Lakeway Rd. Suite 1000

Gillette, WY 82718

Phone: (307)686-1125

Fax: (307)686-1158

Monday, June 30, 2008

RE: www.seismicfactor.com

I do stand corrected on this. I too verified this and in the process of
revising my comments failed to change the Ss and S1 to Sds and Sd1 values
that are dependent on Fa and Fv which are dependent on the Soil
Classification Type. I still give the program credit for being able to
simplify the basic information that I have made errors on in the USGS
software. The USGS software as I mentioned, defaults the soil classification
as 'B' which defaults Fa and Fv to equal 1.0. The user needs to change the
Soil Classification in the USGS software which is not intuitive because of
the need for the user to change the soil type that is prevalent on your
site.

I do stand corrected - thanks for pointing this out.

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: xmy987 [mailto:xmy987@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 8:01 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: www.seismicfactor.com

Dennis,

The site does determine Ss and S1 based on latitude and longitude. If you
test it against the values obtained from USGS for specific latitude and
longitude, you will find that they are IDENTICAL.

I verified with the author then when the user enters the address, the
website will automatically get the latitude and longitude, it will then use
this latitude and longitude to look up Ss and S1 for that specific site. I
tested this on many projects against what is given by USGS and they are
identical. Latitude and longitude determined by the site are exactly that of
Google maps.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Wish [mailto:dennis.wish@verizon.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:26 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: www.seismicfactor.com

Bill,
The site does not actually determine the actual Ss and S1 values from the
address input or the zip code. It is nice in the sense that it calculate or
looks-up the Site latitude and Longitude based on the actual address give
(even without entering the Zip code), but it does not determine the Site
Class (nor does the USGS software). Bother require the user to input the
Site Class and Occupancy Category.

The fault in the web tool is that it does not automatically tell the user if
he or she has exceeded the allowable building height limits since it appears
that the tool is intended to be restricted to two family or less
light-framed residential. If the user inputs a height of 650 feet, it will
calculate the Approximate Fundamental Period, but will not warn the user
that the building height he or she entered is not permitted under the
provisions of table 12.2-1 and for other conditions the user needs to
consider the Overstrength Factors as well as the redundancy factor that
changes when less than 35% of the base shear is distributed to any diaphragm
level.

The problem with tools like this is not so much the author, but the user who
will accept the results without verification or understanding of the code
methods. Yes, there are other requirements that must be considered and at
the very least, the author should have entered the appropriate boiler plate
or performed sufficient beta testing.

The USGS software is specific to the site conditions and does not calculate
the minimum base shear. This program should probably have stopped at the
same results that the USGS software produces since it goes one step better
than the USGS software. The USGS software defaults to a soil classification
of type B. The user has to remember to increase the Soil Class to a minimum
of 'D' depending on the site location or geotechnical report. If the tool
wants to go further than this, then the author should be warning the user to
verify the results and to take responsibility for the output being adequate
or accurate for the site that he or she is working with. This holds true of
most software out there.

I'm not attempting to disparage the software because the ability to input
the address and have it determine the accurate Ss, S1, Fa, Fv, Sds, Sd1, Sms
and Sm1 is still worthwhile and a time saver. I'm curious as I would like to
be able to learn how to institute something like this into my spreadsheet
which requires the user to use a secondary (albeit free) tool such as the
USGS Java software and Google Earth.

From a learning perspective, it would be a value to the professional
community as long as it is clear that the program may produce inaccurate
results when limits are exceeded. I am never one who would discourage anyone
who is willing to share his education on creating tools that we can use to
assist our work.

There is not one software on the market that I would use without questioning
or testing the accuracy. This is our responsibility as a professional
community and the majority of boiler plates on the best software out there
warns the user of potential bugs or inaccurate results if input limits are
not clearly understood.

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: xmy987 [mailto:xmy987@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:24 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: www.seismicfactor.com

Actually Gordon, www.seismicfactor.com does not use the zip code average. It
is obtains specific Ss and S1 based on the actual address. I know many
programs out there use the zip code average which can result in seismic
coefficients being off by as much as 40 percent. I use it regularly and
found it quite reliable and saves me quite a few steps.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Goodell [mailto:GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 10:56 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: www.seismicfactor.com

Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.

Gordon

<<I map the address in Google Maps to get the lat/lon. Then I use the
USGS tool to get the design values.

You can get it here:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/index.php

Chris>>

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

RE: Residential Foundation Tipping

Hello Dave,

My apologies for being so late to respond to this thread.
I've talked to excavators here who will backfill foundations
within two days of the forms being stripped. I asked him
about problems with the stemwalls on single story houses
and basement walls on houses with basements, since
the concrete is still green and the floors haven't been installed.
He said that when the walls move inward, they just reach
over with their bucket and pull it back to "where it should be", a
position that is eye-ball correct.

This didn't instill me with confidence that my design notes
were being read and followed.

If the house that you're looking at was built similarly, then you
may have had a cracked section before the floor was even
installed, and that the walls could have been compromised from
the start.

The other thing that I've seen is anchor bolts getting installed very
close to the outside edge of the sill plate. This might be why they
popped out, or it could have been cracks in the wall due to the
above mentioned pre-mature backfill that cracked the wall alone
a line near or at the anchor bolts.

I hope that this might help you. Food for thought.

Take Care,
Lloyd Pack

On 23 Jun 2008 at 8:16, David Maynard wrote:

>
> The floor system is wood floor trusses that span 30™ (max), rather
> than your typical TJI/BCI engineered wood products, with 0.75
> sub-floor. It™s a one story house with furnished basement, so there
> was no apparent damage on the main level.There did appear to be some
> damage at the corner of one interior wall (œcrushing) which would
> indicate additional deflection of the floor structure. It could also
> be that the house settled after it got furnished and the deflection is
> finally showing through. It™s isolated damage to one area, and there
> are other walls, so I tend to believe it™s an isolated instance.
>
> Dave Maynard
> Gillette, WY
>

Re: I'm I just a small thinker?

So by now, the webinar is history.

I'd like to hear from those who "attended", and I'd especially like to get some feed back from small offices, where the cost could not be amortized to 5, 10 15 or 20 observers. As a sole practitioner, I too believed the cost $250 for this 45 minute webinar is too high, regardless of where the costs go. (that is unless some major information, clarifications, additional handouts were provided, and the webinar turned out to cover a lot wider field of subjects)

I'd like to know if it was more informative than the example in the design manual?

Sincerely
Andrew Vidikan, PE
Los Angeles,

-----Original Message-----
From: David Maynard <d_maynard@wester-wetstein.com>
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 8:14 am
Subject: RE: I'm I just a small thinker?

I totally agree with you, Bill. It's a one hour webinar that is more of a clarification of a design example.

In my opinion, little things like this would be great to offer for free to their membership. Minimum membership fee is $200. What do you get for that money? Wouldn't the added benefit of free continuing education via webinars just like this be a nice addition?

Sincerely,

David Maynard

Gillette, WY

From: Bill Allen [mailto:t.w.allen@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 10:24 PM
To: Seaint
Subject: I'm I just a small thinker?

Or does anyone else think it is ludicrous to charge $250 for a webinar connection?

I'm referring to http://ncsea.com/. Don't get me wrong; I think Doug Thompson is a fine speaker and the topic should be interesting.

But $250 and not even a continental breakfast?

Is it just me?

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!

RE: www.seismicfactor.com

Dennis,

The site does determine Ss and S1 based on latitude and longitude. If you
test it against the values obtained from USGS for specific latitude and
longitude, you will find that they are IDENTICAL.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Wish [mailto:dennis.wish@verizon.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:26 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: www.seismicfactor.com

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: xmy987 [mailto:xmy987@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:24 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: www.seismicfactor.com

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Goodell [mailto:GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 10:56 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: www.seismicfactor.com

Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.

Gordon

<<I map the address in Google Maps to get the lat/lon. Then I use the
USGS tool to get the design values.

You can get it here:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/index.php

Chris>>

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

RE: R=3 Application for Non-building Structures

Dmitri,

Thank you for the confirmation. That is how I read the ASCE 7-05 as it
pertain to non-building structure (i.e piperack).
You made a statement that "AISC 341 does not generally apply to building
structures" (same statement is also made by the professor when I
attended the Seismic design Manual Seminar), yet in order to use a R=3.5
in table 15.4-1 the detailing requirement states that AISC 341 to be
used.

In AISC 341 page 1-7, section on R Equal to 3 Applications starts with
the word "Building"....then it continues with "Seismic provisions are
not intended....... structures"....

Thanks again for the reply.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dmitri Wright [mailto:dmitri@cascade-structural.com]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:50 PM
To: Seaint
Subject: R=3 Application for Non-building Structures

KP,

In my experience, pipe racks are not typically considered building
structures, and therefore AISC 341 does not generally apply to them. I
think I have heard rumors that AISC has started work on developing a
standard for non-building structures (anybody from AISC can feel free to
squash or confirm the rumors!). To be consistent with the IBC, ASCE7
and AISC, this appears to limit the R to 3.0 for most cases. If the
pipe rack is inside and can be considered a component of the building,
it is covered in ASCE7 section 13.6. If it is an exterior freestanding
structure, it is covered by ASCE7 section 15.5.2, which references Table
15.4-1. On this table, the designer can choose different R values, each
with different limits and requirements. If you are in SDC B, you can
use an R=1, and design with AISC 360, with no restrictions.

Dmitri Wright

All,
=20
We have a pipe rack that is SDC B, Ordinary Moment Frame (OMF) in the
transverse and Ordinary Concentrically Brace Frame (OCBF) in the
longitudinal direction. The question is can we use Table 12.2-1 (page
122) ASCE 7-05, H. STEEL SYSTEMS NOT SPECIFICALLY DETAILED FOR SEISMIC
RESISTANCE, EXCLUDING CANTILEVER COLUMN SYSTEMS, R =3D 3 and avoid using
the AISC 341 - Seismic Design Manual?
=20
Table 12.2-1 (pg 122) may not be applicable for pipe rack design
(non-building structure similar to building) because chapter 12 in ASCE
7-05 is designed for building application only. Therefore section H for
"steel systems not specifically detailed for seismic resistance", may
not be applicable.
Pipe rack is covered under Table 15.4-1 - Non-Building Structures
Similar to Building, and the detailing requirements for ordinary moment
frame spell out AISC 341, so special detailing is required using a R =3D
3.5. If the use of R=3D3 is allowed a section similar to section H on
table 12.2-1 will be placed on Table 15.4-1? So unless we use R =3D 1.0
(unlimited height), we have to go by the AISC 341 with special seismic
detailing.
=20
Does anybody have experience on this issue before? please advise.
=20
Thank you in advance.
KP

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

Sunday, June 29, 2008

RE: www.seismicfactor.com

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: xmy987 [mailto:xmy987@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:24 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: www.seismicfactor.com

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Goodell [mailto:GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 10:56 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: www.seismicfactor.com

Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.

Gordon

<<I map the address in Google Maps to get the lat/lon. Then I use the
USGS tool to get the design values.

You can get it here:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/index.php

Chris>>

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