Saturday, July 19, 2008

ASCE 7-05 Section 12.14.8.1 (#4) clarification needed

I need an interpretation to note number 4 of ASCE 7-05 Section 12.14.8.1 which states:

“Where the flat roof snow load, Pf, exceeds 30 psf (1.44 kN/m^2), 20 percent of the uniform design snow load, regardless of actual roof slope.”

 

This seems to conflict with itself. My first interpretation is that if the snow load for a flat roof (say ¼” in 1-foot) slope or a shed roof exceeds 30 psf then you would add 20% or 6 psf to the roof dead load. However, the last section of the statement reads “regardless of actual roof slope” in which case I would interpret the 20% of the Snow Load exceeding 30-psf to be added to any sloped roof.

 

How do others interpret this statement. If the roof is flat should 20% of any Snow Load be considered whereas only 20% of the Snow load exceeding 30-psf be used if the roof is pitched?

 

Dennis S. Wish, PE

 

Dennis S. Wish, PE

California Professional Engineer

Structural Engineering Consultant

La Quinta, CA 92253

dennis.wish@verizon.net

http://structuralist.wordpress.com

http://www.structuralist.net

 

RE: 25% of Live Load added to Lateral

Scott,

Considering this is a lateral load, then my read on it (and maybe this is the same as yours but worded differently) is that you add the 25% of the Storage load only to the 4th floor. My interpretation of what you stated is that you would isolate the area of the room and then add 25% of the storage load for this one area distributed uniformly across the 4th floor. This would greatly reduce the lateral load if the roof is a storage closet for example.

The other half of the argument is that the building department would not be able to control a portion of one level but would assume that the entire level could be used for storage if the user expands the area required.

 

I have a feeling that we are agreeing on this one. I have already made the change and have allowed for a percentage of the storage load to be added into the roof where the attic area is used for storage. I think this should be left to the discretion of the user.

 

Thanks for getting back to me. I have posted another question that is probably applicable in your area of Michigan but comes into play only in a smaller area of the California – Snow loads per ASCE 7 section 12.14.8.1. Please see this post which asks for clarification.

 

Thanks

Dennis

 

From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:55 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: 25% of Live Load added to Lateral

 

It is added to the overall seismic mass of the building ONLY for areas that are designated as storage per the code provisions.  Thus, if you have one ROOM on the 4th floor of a 10 story building that is storage, then only for that THAT portion of the live load would you add the 25% to teh seismic mass...all other locations would have zero percent of the live load added to the seismic mass.

 

At least that is how I read it.

 

Regards,

 

Scott

Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Wish [mailto:dennis.wish@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:07 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: 25% of Live Load added to Lateral

If one floor in a multi-story building is to be used for light or heavy storage, is the 25% of the floor live load added only to the level that is used for storage or is it added to all floors?

 

Dennis S. Wish, PE

 

Dennis S. Wish, PE

California Professional Engineer

C-41250 Exp. 3/31/09

Structural Engineering Consultant

La Quinta, CA 92253

dennis.wish@verizon.net

http://structuralist.wordpress.com

http://www.structuralist.net

 

RE: 25% of Live Load added to Lateral

It is added to the overall seismic mass of the building ONLY for areas that are designated as storage per the code provisions.  Thus, if you have one ROOM on the 4th floor of a 10 story building that is storage, then only for that THAT portion of the live load would you add the 25% to teh seismic mass...all other locations would have zero percent of the live load added to the seismic mass.
 
At least that is how I read it.
 
Regards,
 
Scott
Adrian, MI
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Wish [mailto:dennis.wish@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:07 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: 25% of Live Load added to Lateral

If one floor in a multi-story building is to be used for light or heavy storage, is the 25% of the floor live load added only to the level that is used for storage or is it added to all floors?

 

Dennis S. Wish, PE

 

Dennis S. Wish, PE

California Professional Engineer

C-41250 Exp. 3/31/09

Structural Engineering Consultant

La Quinta, CA 92253

dennis.wish@verizon.net

http://structuralist.wordpress.com

http://www.structuralist.net

 

Friday, July 18, 2008

25% of Live Load added to Lateral

If one floor in a multi-story building is to be used for light or heavy storage, is the 25% of the floor live load added only to the level that is used for storage or is it added to all floors?

 

Dennis S. Wish, PE

 

Dennis S. Wish, PE

California Professional Engineer

C-41250 Exp. 3/31/09

Structural Engineering Consultant

La Quinta, CA 92253

dennis.wish@verizon.net

http://structuralist.wordpress.com

http://www.structuralist.net

 

Re: mobile home tie downs

We require payment before we go out, or a photocopy of a check and the UPS/Fedex tracking number. The margin is not that great, but it's good to fill a morning for the junior guy who can't do more complex field investigations yet. We lose about half the calls this way as most mortgage co.s want to provide payment at settlement. I tell them that to do so would imply a conflict of interest on my part, since I would not get paid unless closing occurred and in order to close I would have to provide a successful certification letter. 
Jordan


Andrew Kester, P.E. wrote:
David,
Put your findings in letter form and have the client bring a check to your office. If they want a verbal answer on the phone just say due to insurance and legal reasons you must express this in a letter. Try to do this by email instead of by phone. Once you get your check cashed change your number.
 
I would not sign and seal a certification for that with your seal or anyone else's.
 
The fees we have been asked to do similar investigations for would barely cover our drive time, much less our headache and liability. And I have reviewed the HUD requirements and they are INVOLVED. Email me privately if you need copies of them, someone else on the list shared them with me.
 
Best of luck, clients never like bad news, especially when it is a residential investigation and they are paying for bad news... (Because now they are not going to get loan approval, so who is paying your bill?)
 
 
Andrew Kester, P.E.
Principal/Project Manager
ADK Structural Engineering, PLLC
1510 E. Colonial Drive, Suite 301
Orlando, FL 32803

re: mobile home tie downs

David,
Put your findings in letter form and have the client bring a check to your office. If they want a verbal answer on the phone just say due to insurance and legal reasons you must express this in a letter. Try to do this by email instead of by phone. Once you get your check cashed change your number.
 
I would not sign and seal a certification for that with your seal or anyone else's.
 
The fees we have been asked to do similar investigations for would barely cover our drive time, much less our headache and liability. And I have reviewed the HUD requirements and they are INVOLVED. Email me privately if you need copies of them, someone else on the list shared them with me.
 
Best of luck, clients never like bad news, especially when it is a residential investigation and they are paying for bad news... (Because now they are not going to get loan approval, so who is paying your bill?)
 
 
Andrew Kester, P.E.
Principal/Project Manager
ADK Structural Engineering, PLLC
1510 E. Colonial Drive, Suite 301
Orlando, FL 32803

Re: Software Recommendations (seismic)


KP,

We have been using DesconBrace and DesconWin for about three years now and it is a pretty good program for designing steel moment and brace connection.  Like any other program you need to be knowledgeable with their default parameters and carefully review the results.

As for R values, be very careful as the old adage of R >3 and R<3 no longer applies,   There are now several cases where seismic detailing is required for R values less than 3 and IBC Section 2205.2.2 requires seismic detailing for all steel structures in Seismic Categories D, E, and F regardless of R value.   For piperacks you need to look at ASCE 7-05 Table15.4-1 and in particular footnotes b, c, and d.  The R value can range from 1 to 8.  Since your piperack is only 14 feet tall you may want to go with an R of 3.5 for ordinary moment frames.  If you are not in Seismic Categories D, E, or F then you may want to go with an R value of 1.0 and forget the seismic detailing all together.  R values of 4.5 and 8 for Intermediate and Special moment frames are available however the design and detailing requirements can be quite onerous.  For piperacks, the R value is more of an economic issue of how much steel (plus anchor bolt and foundation sizing) do you want to save versus the engineering time you might want to put into your design.

Thomas Hunt, S.E.
Fluor



"Teo, KP" <KP_Teo@fwhou.fwc.com>
07/18/2008 04:33 AM
Please respond to seaint
To
<seaint@seaint.org>
cc
"ron jackson" <rjackson@rejacksonengineers.com>
Subject
Software Recommendations (seismic)





Hello,
 
Does anybody have a good software recommendation to perform seismic design calculations per AISC 341-05 - Seismic Design Manual?
 
We have just adpoted IBC2006/ASCE7-05 which references to this manual when R>3 (in most cases) and for most non-building structures. Since different components and connections of the SLRS(Seismic Load resisting System) requires different factors to be applied (ie.Omega factor, expected yield), compactness check (Compact & Seismically Compact)...etc, it can get relatively complex for both designer and checker. Adding to the complexity is this book only uses LRFD, which is very different for someone that is already used to the ASD equations.
 
Therefore i am looking for a user friendly, well organized and accurate software that will perform this task. I know DESCON (Design Connections) now is an add-on to StaadPro. Have anyone use it before and does it do the AISC 341-05 check? I have used the DOS version in the past and it is a good software in my opinion.
 
As a side question, what kind of system (R Value) would you consider a piperack (non-building) with concrete piers constructed to approximately 14 ft height, and steel moment frame modules (constructed off-site and lifted in place) sitting on top of the piers with a fixed-base connection?
 
Thank you in advance for your kind comments.
 
Regards,
 
KP Teo
FWC-US

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler USA Corporation is on the move!
Effective July 7, 2008, Foster Wheeler USA Corporation will have a new address:
585 N. Dairy Ashford
Houston, TX 77079
713-929-5000
Please make note of the new information for your records.

------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended only for the person  or entity to which it is addressed and may contain  proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material.   If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are  hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination,  distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon  this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please  contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.    Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual  sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company.   ------------------------------------------------------------ 

Software Recommendations (seismic)

Hello,
 
Does anybody have a good software recommendation to perform seismic design calculations per AISC 341-05 - Seismic Design Manual?
 
We have just adpoted IBC2006/ASCE7-05 which references to this manual when R>3 (in most cases) and for most non-building structures. Since different components and connections of the SLRS(Seismic Load resisting System) requires different factors to be applied (ie.Omega factor, expected yield), compactness check (Compact & Seismically Compact)...etc, it can get relatively complex for both designer and checker. Adding to the complexity is this book only uses LRFD, which is very different for someone that is already used to the ASD equations.
 
Therefore i am looking for a user friendly, well organized and accurate software that will perform this task. I know DESCON (Design Connections) now is an add-on to StaadPro. Have anyone use it before and does it do the AISC 341-05 check? I have used the DOS version in the past and it is a good software in my opinion.
 
As a side question, what kind of system (R Value) would you consider a piperack (non-building) with concrete piers constructed to approximately 14 ft height, and steel moment frame modules (constructed off-site and lifted in place) sitting on top of the piers with a fixed-base connection? 
 
Thank you in advance for your kind comments.
 
Regards,
 
KP Teo
FWC-US
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler USA Corporation is on the move!
Effective July 7, 2008, Foster Wheeler USA Corporation will have a new address:
585 N. Dairy Ashford
Houston, TX 77079
713-929-5000
Please make note of the new information for your records.

Re: HUD 7584 - Question

            David,

                        Don’t know anything about HUD. While lots of rebar is weldable metallurgy now and I call for welding rebar all the time, I would not approve anything that had welded rebar without full knowledge of the chemistry and weld procedure.

            Jim Getaz

            Precast Concrete Engineer

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Re: HUD 7584 - Question

I've heard that HUD might not accept engineered solutions which aren't in the PFGMH, but have never had one of our certifications reviewed (that I'm aware of). We've passed one with a retrofit using an ICC-ES evaluated vertical/lateral support from Tie-Down Engineering. Of the few I've done, only one has passed on the first go-round, and it was a new-construction set job.
Jordan


Jnapd@aol.com wrote:
David
 
What you described is not in the HUD manual  "Permanent Foundations Guide for Manufactured Housing"
so..........not your stamp or upgrade the foundations.
 
Maybe you could load test the rods and see if  above what is required by design.  Lot of work either way.
 
Joe Venuti
Johnson & Nielsen Associates
Palm Springs, CA
 
In a message dated 7/17/2008 4:16:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, David.Gaines@hdrinc.com writes:
David,
 
I've seen better trailer bracing. North of here in Paso Robles, California right after the earthquake I saw a trailer there with 18" square steel pads staked into the ground at 4 corners. The pad had a steel strut at a 45 degree angle up to the trailer. It was bolted to the trailer with through bolts. There were 6 or 8 of these around the trailer, spread out on two sides. That kind of brace only works in compression. The stakes can not be relied on for tension. The product was a commercially available trailer brace. I don't have the photo any more to look up who made it.
 

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: David Maynard [mailto:d_maynard@wester-wetstein.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:00 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: HUD 7584 - Question

Got a tie-down issue.

 

Homeowner has a single wide mobile home that is tied down with #4 rebar along each beam under the structure (four tie-downs for each beam).  The #4 is pounded into the ground (shale) approximately 24" below grade.  Another #4 bar, with hook on the top, is welded to the stick pounded into the ground.  The hook is then welded to the beam under the structure.

 

The unit is 12' wide by 70' long.  It's been used for 18 years without these tie-downs.

 

I'm asked to verify that these tie-downs are in accordance with HUD.  Upon inspection, I am saying no, which I know will make my client, and likely the homeowner, unhappy.  Simply put, I can't convince myself that this is an adequate construction, and I don't want to put my stamp on it. 

 

Am I missing something in the "Acceptable Methods of Ranch Engineering"?  I'm looking for advice, ASAP.

 

Sincerely,

David Maynard





Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

Column Design for a Flat Slab Building

I have an existing 3 story flat slab that is using only the slab and
columns as the LFRS. I am checking the columns for gravity only right
now.

What equivalent slab beams (torsional members) do you use when you are
calculating the K value for the columns when checking the COLUMNS
THEMSELVES for axial load and gravity induced moments from the 2 way
slab? Do you use the same equivalent slab beams as you do when using
the equivalent frame method for the 2 way slab design? In other words,
what are the equivalent "beams" that are bracing the top and bottom of
the columns when there is only a flat slab available when you are
calculating the K values for the columns?

WH

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: HUD 7584 - Question

David
 
What you described is not in the HUD manual  "Permanent Foundations Guide for Manufactured Housing"
so..........not your stamp or upgrade the foundations.
 
Maybe you could load test the rods and see if  above what is required by design.  Lot of work either way.
 
Joe Venuti
Johnson & Nielsen Associates
Palm Springs, CA
 
In a message dated 7/17/2008 4:16:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, David.Gaines@hdrinc.com writes:
David,
 
I've seen better trailer bracing. North of here in Paso Robles, California right after the earthquake I saw a trailer there with 18" square steel pads staked into the ground at 4 corners. The pad had a steel strut at a 45 degree angle up to the trailer. It was bolted to the trailer with through bolts. There were 6 or 8 of these around the trailer, spread out on two sides. That kind of brace only works in compression. The stakes can not be relied on for tension. The product was a commercially available trailer brace. I don't have the photo any more to look up who made it.
 

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: David Maynard [mailto:d_maynard@wester-wetstein.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:00 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: HUD 7584 - Question

Got a tie-down issue.

 

Homeowner has a single wide mobile home that is tied down with #4 rebar along each beam under the structure (four tie-downs for each beam).  The #4 is pounded into the ground (shale) approximately 24" below grade.  Another #4 bar, with hook on the top, is welded to the stick pounded into the ground.  The hook is then welded to the beam under the structure.

 

The unit is 12' wide by 70' long.  It's been used for 18 years without these tie-downs.

 

I'm asked to verify that these tie-downs are in accordance with HUD.  Upon inspection, I am saying no, which I know will make my client, and likely the homeowner, unhappy.  Simply put, I can't convince myself that this is an adequate construction, and I don't want to put my stamp on it. 

 

Am I missing something in the "Acceptable Methods of Ranch Engineering"?  I'm looking for advice, ASAP.

 

Sincerely,

David Maynard





Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

RE: HUD 7584 - Question

David,
 
I've seen better trailer bracing. North of here in Paso Robles, California right after the earthquake I saw a trailer there with 18" square steel pads staked into the ground at 4 corners. The pad had a steel strut at a 45 degree angle up to the trailer. It was bolted to the trailer with through bolts. There were 6 or 8 of these around the trailer, spread out on two sides. That kind of brace only works in compression. The stakes can not be relied on for tension. The product was a commercially available trailer brace. I don't have the photo any more to look up who made it.
 

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: David Maynard [mailto:d_maynard@wester-wetstein.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:00 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: HUD 7584 - Question

Got a tie-down issue.

 

Homeowner has a single wide mobile home that is tied down with #4 rebar along each beam under the structure (four tie-downs for each beam).  The #4 is pounded into the ground (shale) approximately 24” below grade.  Another #4 bar, with hook on the top, is welded to the stick pounded into the ground.  The hook is then welded to the beam under the structure.

 

The unit is 12’ wide by 70’ long.  It’s been used for 18 years without these tie-downs.

 

I’m asked to verify that these tie-downs are in accordance with HUD.  Upon inspection, I am saying no, which I know will make my client, and likely the homeowner, unhappy.  Simply put, I can’t convince myself that this is an adequate construction, and I don’t want to put my stamp on it. 

 

Am I missing something in the “Acceptable Methods of Ranch Engineering”?  I’m looking for advice, ASAP.

 

Sincerely,

David Maynard

HUD 7584 - Question

Got a tie-down issue.

 

Homeowner has a single wide mobile home that is tied down with #4 rebar along each beam under the structure (four tie-downs for each beam).  The #4 is pounded into the ground (shale) approximately 24” below grade.  Another #4 bar, with hook on the top, is welded to the stick pounded into the ground.  The hook is then welded to the beam under the structure.

 

The unit is 12’ wide by 70’ long.  It’s been used for 18 years without these tie-downs.

 

I’m asked to verify that these tie-downs are in accordance with HUD.  Upon inspection, I am saying no, which I know will make my client, and likely the homeowner, unhappy.  Simply put, I can’t convince myself that this is an adequate construction, and I don’t want to put my stamp on it. 

 

Am I missing something in the “Acceptable Methods of Ranch Engineering”?  I’m looking for advice, ASAP.

 

Sincerely,

David Maynard

Re: autocad link

I thought it was just part of the agreement where, in return for autocad, you sold your your soul and that happened to include their link in your sig.  I know that the transfer of my immortal soul was part of the last maintenance agreement contract.
Jordan


Christopher Banbury wrote:

We print and deliver almost every project in autocad’s DWF format. Until last year autocad charged $300 for the ADR application to markup and create DWFs. They are giving it away now. I have a download link in my signature so I don’t have to explain to every client where to find it.

 

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: Rich Lewis [mailto:seaint04@lewisengineering.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 8:01 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: site accident, unsafe deck

 

Why does this email have an Autodesk advertisement? 

 

Re: Curved GLB

scott-  is all of your analysis time billable, or is it just after hours stuff you would do?

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:02 AM, Scott Maxwell <smaxwell@umich.edu> wrote:
Yes...basically some "plate" type action.  The key is how much is "some".  Just lateral bending of the wall itself will provide "some" thrust resistance.  The tough part is how to quatify how much thrust resistance such elements can provide...especially without doing some full tilt FEA analysis (talk about fun).
 
Regards,
 
Scott
Adrian, MI
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Gordin [mailto:sgordin@sgeconsulting.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:08 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Curved GLB

Scott,
 
Do you think that the roof diaphragm of reasonable proportions may provide some thrust resistance by spanning between the end walls (e.g., gables)?  
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 20:14
Subject: RE: Curved GLB

What he said...<grin> 
 
Or if you are anal like me and you enjoy creating computers just for the fun of it, you could always model it in a structural analysis program.  Of course, you will have to model the curve as a bunch of small line segments to get your "arch" shape.  And it is more work.  And if you REALLY like to have fun, then you can play with the supports as springs to try to model the stiffness/lateral resistance that the wall might present...but that will likely rather tough to really reproduce and would likely not be worth it (other than for a fun educational experience in structural modelling).
 
Regards,
 
Scott
Adrian, MI
-----Original Message-----
From: Harold Sprague [mailto:spraguehope@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 7:00 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Curved GLB

It would appear that it would be just a pin roller support.  Calculate the vertical deflection predicated on the properties of the GLB.  Then translate the vertical deflection to the outward deflection at the supporting walls with simple trigonometry. 

Regards,
Harold Sprague


Subject: RE: Curved GLB
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:27:46 -0600
From: GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

Scott & Harold,

 

Right.  What I'm wondering is, if there were no tie rod, sitting on 9' tall light-framed wood walls ~28' long (so essentially unbraced), how much would that curved GLB (radius ~20') really unwind?

 

regards,

Gordon Goodell

 

 

 

From: Harold Sprague [mailto:spraguehope@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:10 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Curved GLB

 

Gordon,
If you use a tie rod, it will become a point of restraint as the arch tries to deflect.  Therefore the tie rod will have to resist the full static thrust load of approximately (w * L squared) / (8 * H).

Regards,
Harold Sprague



Subject: Curved GLB
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:04:46 -0600
From: GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

I'm working on a project with curved GLB roof framing, ~16' span, 5'o.c. w/ joists hung btwn them.  The architect is expecting a tie rod at plate level, but I'm wondering how to calc the thrust at the base of these things.  Considering how they're manufactured, it seems like there should be a lot less horizontal force at the plate than a simple statics analysis would indicate.

thanks,

Gordon Goodell


ExchangeDefender Message Security: Check Authenticity


It's a talkathon – but it's not just talk. Check out the i'm Talkathon.


ExchangeDefender Message Security: Check Authenticity


It's a talkathon – but it's not just talk. Check out the i'm Talkathon.



--
David Topete, SE

Re: flat plate strengthening

Andrew,
 
        I just did something similar with a one way slab.  In my case I had a building with the basement extended out under the city sidewalk by about eight feet for the entire 130 feet length of the building.  The structure consisted of concrete encased steel beams at various spacing (about eight feet) with the slab designed as simple spans spanning parallel to the building.  Some of the steel beams had corroded to the point where failure was imminent; and, in my opinion, the reinforcing was marginal (to say the least) for the spans considering possible load which might accidentally be applied.
 
        My solution was to widen the beams by up to two feet on each side of the existing beams using reinforced concrete (also roughen the underside of the slab where required).  This a.) reduced the slab spans, and b.) provided new beams which were themselves adequate to carry an H20 truck wheel load.  I used a very liquid, shrinkage compensated concrete mix (about 4,000 p.s.i. plus high early strength) that could be pumped through 4" holes drilled through the slab.  The slab has since been subjected to a crane pad and a fire truck loading without problems.
 
        Hope this helps.
 
Regards,
 
H. Daryl Richardson
----- Original Message -----
To: seaint
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:40 AM
Subject: flat plate strengthening

Does anyone have any advice on methods of strengthening a flat plate slab with drop panels in an existing hospital? We cannot likely remove any live load except from a very limited area. It may be possible to go underneath and place steel or additional concrete. I am dealing with spans of about 26ft and 20ft.
 
The slab is not working in negative bending at a column strip over the column (not enough top bars), punching shear is not a problem. It would work if there was more rebar in the slab initially... The building was built in 1960, we do have some of the original drawings and are working on getting additional drawings. We are adding about 9000lbs total of medical equipment to a room that works out to about 70psf, but the capacity we are getting thru calcs is about 50psf. I know that uniform load does not equal the effects of point loads, this is just the first step and quite a bit off the required capacity.
 
Though I have never done it before, if you could get a majority of the LL off of the slab, could you maybe cut the slab and epoxy/grout in rebar, or use carbon sheets for additional negative reinforcement? I am thinking the problem in our application would be that it would be necessary to add this outside of the room, out into the hallway...
 
Thanks in advance, please CC me directly.
Andrew
 
Andrew Kester, P.E.
Principal/Project Manager
ADK Structural Engineering, PLLC
1510 E. Colonial Drive, Suite 301
Orlando, FL 32803

Re: Steel Pipe fabrication & Galvanizing Specifications


Nitin,

I assume you are using the pipe in a structural application as opposed to a pressure or gravity flow pipe situation.  If so, then the fabrication would still fall under the AISC requirements which would be AISC 360 for the design and AISC 303 for the fabrication and erection.  Galvanizing for the main pipe sections would fall under ASTM A123 and if you have small parts and loose connection pieces that would fall under ASTM A153.  If you are using the pipe to transmit liquids then you may be in the ASME world.

Thomas Hunt, S.E.
Fluor



"Nittsi" <nitin26nagar@rediffmail.com>
07/17/2008 08:53 AM
Please respond to seaint
To
<seaint@seaint.org>
cc
Subject
Steel Pipe fabrication & Galvanizing Specifications





Dear All,

Can Anybody provide code for Steel pipe Fabrication and galvenizing.

Thanks for your coperation in Advance.

Regards,
Nitin nagar    
Rediff Shopping


------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended only for the person  or entity to which it is addressed and may contain  proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material.   If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are  hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination,  distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon  this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please  contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.    Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual  sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company.   ------------------------------------------------------------ 

Steel Pipe fabrication & Galvanizing Specifications

Dear All,

Can Anybody provide code for Steel pipe Fabrication and galvenizing.

Thanks for your coperation in Advance.

Regards,
Nitin nagar     
Rediff Shopping

RE: autocad link

We print and deliver almost every project in autocad’s DWF format. Until last year autocad charged $300 for the ADR application to markup and create DWFs. They are giving it away now. I have a download link in my signature so I don’t have to explain to every client where to find it.

 

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: Rich Lewis [mailto:seaint04@lewisengineering.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 8:01 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: site accident, unsafe deck

 

Why does this email have an Autodesk advertisement? 

 

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

RE: site accident, unsafe deck

Why does this email have an Autodesk advertisement? 

 

 

 

From: Christopher Banbury [mailto:cbanbury@arkengineering.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 10:24 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: site accident, unsafe deck

 

My engineer and I had a narrow scrape today when we broke through a tread and intermediate rail while on an elevated wood deck (single family) during a site visit. We escaped serious injury but I’d like some advice as to how the owner and/or AHJ should be notified. I suspect the entire deck and stair is unsafe including the attachment to the main structure.

At the site I immediately instructed the owner to cordon the area off and I am preparing a letter as well.

I would appreciate any advice regarding language, delivery methods and procedures.

Thanks in advance.

 

Christopher Banbury, PE

President

 

Ark Engineering, Inc.

PO Box 10129, Brooksville, FL 34603

22 North Broad ST, Brooksville, FL 34601

Phone: (352) 754-2424

Fax: (352) 754-2412

www.arkengineering.net

 

 

 

RE: flat plate strengthening - Fireproofing


I think I have seen the FRP guys use an intumescent paint for fireproofing.  You may want to call Quakewrap or Fiberwarp to see what they currently recommend.

Thomas Hunt, S.E.
Fluor



Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com>
07/16/2008 01:58 PM
Please respond to seaint
To
<seaint@seaint.org>
cc
Subject
RE: flat plate strengthening





I had a similar experience on a shopping center.  We increased the LL from 40 psf to 100 psf.  We added wide flange beams at the column lines to pick up the beam load.  The slab was OK as it existed.  

We anchored the beams at the columns and suspended the end of the steel beam from anchor rods to the slab above.  The beams were preloaded with load cells and hydraulic rams so that we knew how much load we were preloading into the steel beam.  We then welded in WT's between the bottom of the slab and the top of the wide flange beam that locked the preload into the beam and transmitted horizontal shear to make the beam composite.  Thus the dead load was picked up by the wide flange steel beam and the live load was then shared in the composite section.  It was then load tested.  The anticipated deflections were calculated and it performed pretty close to the calcs.  

That was done in 1982.  The shopping mall is doing just fine.  

I like FRP, but you have to waive fire resistance.  I am not aware of any protection on FRP to get a fire rating.  I can use a lot of different materials to protect structural steel.  And, obviously, concrete is pretty good in fire resistance.

Regards,
Harold Sprague





From: akester@cfl.rr.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: flat plate strengthening
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:40:47 -0400


Does anyone have any advice on methods of strengthening a flat plate slab with drop panels in an existing hospital? We cannot likely remove any live load except from a very limited area. It may be possible to go underneath and place steel or additional concrete. I am dealing with spans of about 26ft and 20ft.

 
The slab is not working in negative bending at a column strip over the column (not enough top bars), punching shear is not a problem. It would work if there was more rebar in the slab initially... The building was built in 1960, we do have some of the original drawings and are working on getting additional drawings. We are adding about 9000lbs total of medical equipment to a room that works out to about 70psf, but the capacity we are getting thru calcs is about 50psf. I know that uniform load does not equal the effects of point loads, this is just the first step and quite a bit off the required capacity.
 
Though I have never done it before, if you could get a majority of the LL off of the slab, could you maybe cut the slab and epoxy/grout in rebar, or use carbon sheets for additional negative reinforcement? I am thinking the problem in our application would be that it would be necessary to add this outside of the room, out into the hallway...
 
Thanks in advance, please CC me directly.
Andrew
 
Andrew Kester, P.E.
Principal/Project Manager
ADK Structural Engineering, PLLC
1510 E. Colonial Drive, Suite 301
Orlando, FL 32803



Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety. Help protect your kids.
------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended only for the person  or entity to which it is addressed and may contain  proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material.   If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are  hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination,  distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon  this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please  contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.    Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual  sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company.   ------------------------------------------------------------ 

RE: flat plate strengthening

I had a similar experience on a shopping center.  We increased the LL from 40 psf to 100 psf.  We added wide flange beams at the column lines to pick up the beam load.  The slab was OK as it existed. 
 
We anchored the beams at the columns and suspended the end of the steel beam from anchor rods to the slab above.  The beams were preloaded with load cells and hydraulic rams so that we knew how much load we were preloading into the steel beam.  We then welded in WT's between the bottom of the slab and the top of the wide flange beam that locked the preload into the beam and transmitted horizontal shear to make the beam composite.  Thus the dead load was picked up by the wide flange steel beam and the live load was then shared in the composite section.  It was then load tested.  The anticipated deflections were calculated and it performed pretty close to the calcs. 
 
That was done in 1982.  The shopping mall is doing just fine. 
 
I like FRP, but you have to waive fire resistance.  I am not aware of any protection on FRP to get a fire rating.  I can use a lot of different materials to protect structural steel.  And, obviously, concrete is pretty good in fire resistance.

Regards,
Harold Sprague




From: akester@cfl.rr.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: flat plate strengthening
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:40:47 -0400


Does anyone have any advice on methods of strengthening a flat plate slab with drop panels in an existing hospital? We cannot likely remove any live load except from a very limited area. It may be possible to go underneath and place steel or additional concrete. I am dealing with spans of about 26ft and 20ft.
 
The slab is not working in negative bending at a column strip over the column (not enough top bars), punching shear is not a problem. It would work if there was more rebar in the slab initially... The building was built in 1960, we do have some of the original drawings and are working on getting additional drawings. We are adding about 9000lbs total of medical equipment to a room that works out to about 70psf, but the capacity we are getting thru calcs is about 50psf. I know that uniform load does not equal the effects of point loads, this is just the first step and quite a bit off the required capacity.
 
Though I have never done it before, if you could get a majority of the LL off of the slab, could you maybe cut the slab and epoxy/grout in rebar, or use carbon sheets for additional negative reinforcement? I am thinking the problem in our application would be that it would be necessary to add this outside of the room, out into the hallway...
 
Thanks in advance, please CC me directly.
Andrew
 
Andrew Kester, P.E.
Principal/Project Manager
ADK Structural Engineering, PLLC
1510 E. Colonial Drive, Suite 301
Orlando, FL 32803


Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety. Help protect your kids.

RE: Brittle and Ductile steel elements

Return Receipt

Your RE: Brittle and Ductile steel elements
document:

was
received
by:

at: 07/16/2008 01:32:59 PM

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

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