Structural Engineering: 2009-02-01

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Re: Plotting pdf

Get Bluebeam. 200 bucks, way better for Cad and great for marking up stuff too (submittals and RFI's)

-g

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Bill Allen <t.w.allen@cox.net> wrote:

Try a different driver. Google "CutePDF". It's free and sets up pretty easily.

I don't believe Acrobat Reader provides a driver for printing.

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Thor Tandy [mailto:vicpeng@telus.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 2:39 PM
To: SEAINT
Subject: Plotting pdf

I have an HP Designjet 200 (C3181A). Since getting Acrobat reader version 8 I have had trouble plotting.

1) I have noticed that 200KB pdf files are inflating to 10MB ????

2) Shaded parts get messed up.

3) Plotted image layout goes crazy sometimes.

4) Usually get "error" message on plotter and print queue and the plotter hangs.

5) I manage to get the odd pdf image to plot correctly.

Acrobat, customer service, of course, hasn't a clue why the problem, and I'm so in the dark ages with hardware that they probably don't want to help anyway.

Does anyone have any ideas for a techy retard.

Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, C.Eng, Struct.Eng, MIStructE
Victoria, BC
Canada

I don't think you're missing a thing. This is just one example of the difference between the way "we've always done it, and it's worked fine" and the "ivory tower" (i.e., engineered) approach.

I've seen enough old roof framing -- with its many sags, splits, twists, irrational framing details, incipient failures, etc. -- to feel comfortable in following what I believe to be a rational engineering approach, such as you've done. No cutting corners! Here in the lowlands of California, where it doesn't snow, our roofs can stand up with practically *no* framing (2x4 rafters @ 32" oc spanning 12', for instance!), but only because they're never tested by snow, etc.

You can't "prove" that something's adequate if it's not. And *lots* of things that have been done for eons are really not adequate, we just may not know it. And there ARE failures, infrequent though they may be.

Stick to your guns! (Ignorance is bliss.)

Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
Richmond CA USA

In a message dated 2/7/09 7:38:39 PM, ENGRLAINES@aol.com writes:

An architect client asked me to answer a building official's request to verify the strength of a valley rafter (or beam) in a wood roof. The architect specified a valley rafter 2" deeper than the rafters (as usual), but this time he is being challenged to prove it. I analyzed it as a simple beam taking half the tributary load from the jack rafters framing into it and it is in fact way off! The architect maintains that he and everyone he knows have always spec'd 2" deeper for decades with no failures or even challenges. He even showed me text books and other reference books with this recommendation. Am I missing something?
Charles O. Laines, S.E.
LAINES ASSOCIATES, LONG BEACH, CA

**************
Nothing says I love you like flowers! Find a florist near you now. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000001)

Valley Rafters

An architect client asked me to answer a building official's request to verify the strength of a valley rafter (or beam) in a wood roof. The architect specified a valley rafter 2" deeper than the rafters (as usual), but this time he is being challenged to prove it. I analyzed it as a simple beam taking half the tributary load from the jack rafters framing into it and it is in fact way off! The architect maintains that he and everyone he knows have always spec'd 2" deeper for decades with no failures or even challenges. He even showed me text books and other reference books with this recommendation. Am I missing something?

Charles O. Laines, S.E.
LAINES ASSOCIATES, LONG BEACH, CA

Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.

RE: Plotting pdf

Try a different driver. Google "CutePDF". It's free and sets up pretty easily.

I don't believe Acrobat Reader provides a driver for printing.

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Thor Tandy [mailto:vicpeng@telus.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 2:39 PM
To: SEAINT
Subject: Plotting pdf

I have an HP Designjet 200 (C3181A). Since getting Acrobat reader version 8 I have had trouble plotting.

1) I have noticed that 200KB pdf files are inflating to 10MB ????

2) Shaded parts get messed up.

3) Plotted image layout goes crazy sometimes.

4) Usually get "error" message on plotter and print queue and the plotter hangs.

5) I manage to get the odd pdf image to plot correctly.

Acrobat, customer service, of course, hasn't a clue why the problem, and I'm so in the dark ages with hardware that they probably don't want to help anyway.

Does anyone have any ideas for a techy retard.

Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, C.Eng, Struct.Eng, MIStructE
Victoria, BC
Canada

Plotting pdf

I have an HP Designjet 200 (C3181A). Since getting Acrobat reader version 8 I have had trouble plotting.

1) I have noticed that 200KB pdf files are inflating to 10MB ????

2) Shaded parts get messed up.

3) Plotted image layout goes crazy sometimes.

4) Usually get "error" message on plotter and print queue and the plotter hangs.

5) I manage to get the odd pdf image to plot correctly.

Acrobat, customer service, of course, hasn't a clue why the problem, and I'm so in the dark ages with hardware that they probably don't want to help anyway.

Does anyone have any ideas for a techy retard.

Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, C.Eng, Struct.Eng, MIStructE
Victoria, BC
Canada

AASHTO LRFD Nominal Shear Resistence for Concrete

Do you know where is the definition for the d-sub-y variable for the
determination of Beta and Theta in the 'Simplified Procedure for
Nonprestressed Sections' for the Nominal Shear Resistance of Concrete
Sections in the Third and Fourth Editions of AASHTO LRFD?

Jorge Jimenez, PE

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: FEM Add-In for Excel

On Feb 7, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Bill Allen wrote:

> I hate to bring out the "Big Gun" of an analysis program when I
> have a simple frame to analyze. Is anyone aware of a FEM Add-In for
> Excel?
I bet you could make a really fine implementation of some of the old
style virtual work solutions for small frames with less trouble than
it'd take to figure out how someone else did it and much less work
than getting up to speed with FEM software. Failing that, check
version tracker or some similar site for small frame shareware.

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/members/chrisw/

FEM Add-In for Excel

I hate to bring out the "Big Gun" of an analysis program when I have a simple frame to analyze.

Is anyone aware of a FEM Add-In for Excel?

TIA,

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

RE: Opportunities in Texas for Structural Engineers

I think it would be fun to work for Stan...

Let someone else "make some rain" for a while!

But, I have too much experience, it appears.

dlf

> We produce ... and we consume. It is called free enterprise, and it works
> best without government help.
>
> Sent from my Samsung SAGA dataphone.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: erik_g@cox.net
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 7:50 PM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Opportunities in Texas for Structural Engineers
>
> Who wants to move to another country also known as Texas. Man Texans
> actually act like they live in different country, and they consume....well
> I'll just leave it at that.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Examples Structural Wood Design Table M9.2-2

I'm reading the Examples Structural Wood Design Problem 12, page 100.

The Ft A in Table M9.2-2. I looked the entire NDS book. I could not locate this table.

Does anyone know where this table is located?

Thanks,

RE: Opportunities in Texas for Structural Engineers

We produce ... and we consume. It is called free enterprise, and it works best without government help.

Sent from my Samsung SAGA dataphone.

-----Original Message-----
From: erik_g@cox.net
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 7:50 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Opportunities in Texas for Structural Engineers

Who wants to move to another country also known as Texas. Man Texans actually act like they live in different country, and they consume....well I'll just leave it at that.

RE: Opportunities in Texas for Structural Engineers

Bill:

Anaheim and Orlando have Disney, but Dallas has Jerry and Dubya.

My group now has a 36 month backlog. There is no recession here.

Stan

Sent from my Samsung SAGA dataphone.

From: Bill Allen <t.w.allen@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 4:56 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Opportunities in Texas for Structural Engineers

Hi, Stan.

Sounds good except for one part.

O.K., two if you count the "maximum 3 years experience" part.

The other one being having to live in Texas. It's probably hard to tune out the National Embarrassment otherwise known as the Dallas Cowboys being so close to the epicenter.

:o)

In the 43 years I have been following the Cowboys, I have never been so ashamed of calling myself a fan.

Good luck in your search.

Regards,

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 9:37 AM
To: SEAINT Listserv
Subject: Opportunities in Texas for Structural Engineers

Halff Associates has immediate openings for structural engineers with MSCE or BSAE degrees and excellent grades. New graduates are encouraged to apply. We will also consider engineers with up to three years of meaningful experience. We offer outstanding career opportunities, attractive compensation and benefit packages, and a professional work environment. Halff Associates is an Equal Opportunity Employer of U.S. citizens and immigrants with permanent resident status.

If you are interested, please send you resume and copies of your transcripts to:

STAN R. CALDWELL, P.E., SECB, F.ASCE, F.AEI

Vice President

HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC.

1201 North Bowser Road

Richardson, Texas 75081

214-346-6280

scaldwell@halff.com

www.halff.com

RE: Opportunities in Texas for Structural Engineers

Who wants to move to another country also known as Texas. Man Texans actually act like they live in different country, and they consume....well I'll just leave it at that.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen [mailto:t.w.allen@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:57 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Opportunities in Texas for Structural Engineers

Hi, Stan.

Sounds good except for one part.

O.K., two if you count the "maximum 3 years experience" part.

The other one being having to live in Texas. It's probably hard to tune out the National Embarrassment otherwise known as the Dallas Cowboys being so close to the epicenter.

:o)

In the 43 years I have been following the Cowboys, I have never been so ashamed of calling myself a fan.

Good luck in your search.

Regards,

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 9:37 AM
To: SEAINT Listserv
Subject: Opportunities in Texas for Structural Engineers

Halff Associates has immediate openings for structural engineers with MSCE or BSAE degrees and excellent grades. New graduates are encouraged to apply. We will also consider engineers with up to three years of meaningful experience. We offer outstanding career opportunities, attractive compensation and benefit packages, and a professional work environment. Halff Associates is an Equal Opportunity Employer of U.S. citizens and immigrants with permanent resident status.

If you are interested, please send you resume and copies of your transcripts to:

STAN R. CALDWELL, P.E., SECB, F.ASCE, F.AEI

Vice President

HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC.

1201 North Bowser Road

Richardson, Texas 75081

214-346-6280

scaldwell@halff.com

www.halff.com

RE: Opportunities in Texas for Structural Engineers

Oops.

This should have gone to Stan directly.

My apologies to the list.

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

RE: Opportunities in Texas for Structural Engineers

Hi, Stan.

Sounds good except for one part.

O.K., two if you count the "maximum 3 years experience" part.

The other one being having to live in Texas. It's probably hard to tune out the National Embarrassment otherwise known as the Dallas Cowboys being so close to the epicenter.

:o)

In the 43 years I have been following the Cowboys, I have never been so ashamed of calling myself a fan.

Good luck in your search.

Regards,

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

ALLEN DESIGNS

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

If you are interested, please send you resume and copies of your transcripts to:

STAN R. CALDWELL, P.E., SECB, F.ASCE, F.AEI

Vice President

HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC.

1201 North Bowser Road

Richardson, Texas 75081

214-346-6280

scaldwell@halff.com

www.halff.com

RE: ACI 530 R=1.5

Not that my opinion necessarily means much (that and a penny will be worth 1 cent), but I agree with Paul’s interpretation. It does NOT limit…per se. Now, if ALL your masonry seismic lateral load resisting elements are “piers”, then I guess you could construe this provision as effectively limiting your R to 1.5.

Regards,

Scott

Adrian, MI

From: Paul Feather [mailto:PFeather@se-solutions.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:02 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: ACI 530 R=1.5

This is interesting, but I would interpret this to be a little different. The provision is an exception to the requirement that at least 80% of the stiffness is provided by walls for the story level. The other 20% has to be something. If 80% of the lateral stiffness is not walls, then an R of 1.5 would allow you to use piers and columns which is essentially a cantilevered system and therefore makes sense. But if 80% of the lateral stiffness is walls, and you happen to have a couple piers between openings that require design for their contribution to the overall wall, I would not take that as requiring an R of 1.5.

Also, as you point out, if you are designing to ASD, this provision does not apply. You are not required to use 1.5V in strength design either, so each system has different mechanisms to limit design and set minimum levels. If it is a cantilever system you would already be using the lower R factor from the IBC.

What are you designing?

Paul Feather PE, SE

pfeather@SE-Solutions.net

www.SE-Solutions.net

From: Rick [mailto:mohr2circle@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 8:43 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: ACI 530 R=1.5

Look at ACI 530 3.1.3.1... it limits the R to 1.5, but only in the strength section. City of LA code references 530 to answer the other section.

I saw 3.3.3.5, and thought thats what they were origianlly referring to, but 3.1.3.1 is pretty clear. But nothing in ASD

Rick

--- On Thu, 2/5/09, Paul Feather <PFeather@se-solutions.net> wrote:

From: Paul Feather <PFeather@se-solutions.net>
Subject: RE: ACI 530 R=1.5
To: seaint@seaint.org
Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 8:35 AM

ACI 530 does not set or establish R factors. There are only two possible explanations that I am aware of: first if using strength design there is a provision for maximum area of flexural tensile reinforcement (3.3.3.5) where M/Vd greater or less than 1 and IF the design used an R of less than or greater than 1.5 is a trigger for additional design requirements. This is not an R factor limitation, just a trigger for other provisions. Second would be if they are somehow mis-interpreting the shear force required of 1.5V in ASD design, but this is an IBC requirement and not in ACI 530 either.

I would ask the Plan reviewer to specify which code provision he / she is referencing with his comment.

Paul Feather PE, SE

pfeather@SE-Solutions.net

www.SE-Solutions.net

From: Rick [mailto:mohr2circle@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:58 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: ACI 530 R=1.5

I have a City of LA Plan check comemnt that R = 1.5 "must" be used for masonry walls piers per ACI 530.

Can someone point me to the specific reference.

Opportunities in Texas for Structural Engineers

If you are interested, please send you resume and copies of your transcripts to:

STAN R. CALDWELL, P.E., SECB, F.ASCE, F.AEI

Vice President

HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC.

1201 North Bowser Road

Richardson, Texas 75081

214-346-6280

scaldwell@halff.com

www.halff.com

Re: SEI wind design example

Bro

am I lazy or what? I sent your Q to SEAONC
Here is what I got

Love Bro

Horizontal roof pressures either cancel or as you suggest oppose the over
turning from the wind ward wall pressure. Therefore ignoring should be
conservative.

Ignoring dead load should be conservative. As it is for limit state design
we use the 5th percentile estimate of the dead load, rather than the 95th
percentile: eg. minimum estimate of dead load, and lowest value of all is
zero: ignore resistance.

As for uplift. Uplift and lateral bracing considered separately and combined
as necessary. For example if trusses are tied down at each end, then roof
uplift may not add to hold-down in the transverse shear walls but may add to
hold-down for longitudinal shear walls. So the designer adds the direct
uplift force in as required.

Or at least that is my guess.

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

# From: ken ng <zy7up(--nospam--at)yahoo.com>
Does any one know where I can find similar design example like this for
ACI-318-05 or 07?
TIA

David Merrick, Structural Engineer, Merrick Group wrote:
> For the wind design method: Trial Design Problem: Prob_01_07, found at
> the web site:
> content.seinstitute.org/files/pdf/Sol_Prob_01_07-Final.pdf
>
> On page 4 they show a profile of the wind loads and a shearwall. They
> neglect the horizontal component of the roof pressures since the
> reduce the lateral force on the wall. How come they ignore the
> vertical uplift force from the roof too?
>
> The same is done on page 3.
>
> Since they neglect dead load, perhaps they assume the tow counteract
> each other.
>
> David Merrick, SE
>

Re: Codes comparison

Hi Benjamin,

My question was not just directed at your project. I too have worked on some projects outside the USA and those project folks seemed to have known only about UBC 1997. More interesting is the fact that even US based equipment vendors continue to use UBC 97. When mechanical engineering guy in my company is putting together a specification for a pressure vessel or a heta exchanger or a cooler would ask me "Hey, Raj what zone should I specify for seismic force determination?" Recently, I called a person in Smithco regarding the absence of seismic force data in his drawings, he agreed to perform the requested calculations provided I specified the seismic zone. This is not the first time.

Rajendran

--- On Thu, 2/5/09, Ing. Benjamín Arcos Reyes <barcosr@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Ing. Benjamín Arcos Reyes <barcosr@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Codes comparison
To: seaint@seaint.org
Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 10:02 PM

All of you, Thank you for your replies.

Rajendran, I'm not sure about the reason for asking us to use the UBC 97. Actually this comparison is for a company of the United States (sorry, some sort of confidentiality code prohibits us a lot of things, probably including this) and that has been the requirement. As a matter of fact, when structural consultants have came to Mexico in order to align all of us with the same design criteria, is the UBC-97 the one that is considered. Local codes are commonly used, many of them updated to the recent years. I'll certainly ask them about the reason of not using IBC2006 or ASCE 7. I'll let you know.

Mr. Sprague, I'll contact you on your mail address. Thank you very much..

Benjamin

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Padmanabhan Rajendran <prajendran@ymail.com> wrote:

I am curious: Why is there a reference to UBC-97 when it is so outdated. Any company that is ISO 9000 certified is required to use latest codes. It surprises me that several equipment vendors have not revised their software or spreadsheets to be in line with IBC or ASCE 7 procedures.

Rajendran

--- On Thu, 2/5/09, Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Codes comparison
To: seaint@seaint.org
Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 2:27 AM

Your English requires no excuse. It is probably better than MY English and decidedly better than my Spanish. I would urge you to purchase not only the IBC 2006 but also the ASCE 7-05.

Some of the most fundamental differences are in the seismic and wind provisions. As such, the seismic provisions of the IBC and ASCE 7 have evolved from the NEHRP Provisions. There are many helpful documents that will provide seismic design guidance at: http://www.bssconline.org/

The starting point of the seismic section is the use of the Ss and S1 values to define the ground shaking. Some of the values you will need for South America are contained in the UFC 3-310-01.
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_310_01.pdf

I hope that you find this helpful.

Regards, Harold Sprague

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:29:57 -0600
Subject: Codes comparison
From: barcosr@gmail.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

Hi everyone,

The company I work for is usually asked for comparing the regulations included in the UBC-97 with those included in the local codes for several structural projects performed in Latinamerica. I wonder if these comparisons are still meaningful or should be made with the IBC 2006. I'm not aware of the serious differences that might exist between UBC and IBC. Does anybody have an opinion about this?.. it is my intend to purchase the IBC 2006... so.. I''m very interested in your comments. Thanks in advance. As ususal, excuse me for my possible language mistakes.

Ing. Benjamin Arcos Reyes

Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check it out.

--
Atentamente,
\0>
.||
< \_

Ing. Benjamín Arcos Reyes.
Visita: http://www.senderodelpeje.blogspot.com/

Adjustment Factors Cd for timber column

In addition to the points that have been made:

1) As with any material, all load combinations have to be evaluated to determine which one controls. So, while it seldom controls for wood, dead load acting alone would also have to be checked with a load duration factor of 0.9. I know that the example problem to which you are referring is asking for the largest D+L permitted on the column, but I wanted to make sure we cover all the bases.

2) The load duration factor is applied to the appropriate design values, not the load combination. The reason is because load duration factors are not applied to modulus of elasticity or to compression perpendicular to grain.

There’s more discussion about this subject in Appendix B of the NDS®.

Hope this helps.

Buddy

John "Buddy" Showalter, P.E.
Director, Technical Media
AF&PA/American Wood Council
1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
P: 202-463-2769
F: 202-463-2791
http://www.awc.org

The American Wood Council (AWC) is the wood products division of the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). AWC develops internationally recognized standards for wood design and construction. Its efforts with building codes and standards, engineering and research, and technology transfer ensure proper application for engineered and traditional wood products.

*********************
The guidance provided herein is not a formal interpretation of any AF&PA standard. Interpretations of AF&PA standards are only available through a formal process outlined in AF&PA's standards development procedures.

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

From: ken ng [mailto:zy7up@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 09:08

To: seaint@seaint.org

Subject: Adjustment Factors Cd for timber column

I'm looking at 2005 Examples Structural Wood Design Problem #2. Column ha=

s D+S, and the example used Cd =3D 1.15 which is Snow load and neglected Cd=

=3D0.9 for Dead load.

Does anyone know why Cd=3D0.9 was not apply?

Thursday, February 5, 2009

RE: Adjustment Factors Cd for timber column

Wesley,

Thanks I wondered about that, we have 6.0.20 - just bother to update as we have to get IS to come do it

Paul

>>> "Wesley Werner" <wwerner@conewago.com> 02/05/2009 3:43 PM >>>

Paul,

What version of EC 6 are you using? The latest update is 6.0.21. I have this version, and I can't duplicate your problem.

Wesley C. Werner

From: Paul Guthrie [mailto:PGuthrie@simivalley.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 5:12 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Adjustment Factors Cd for timber column

Gordon,

Yeah, we found those but for example the 1.25 applies only to the Lr not to the combination. We gave up, I used one of my spreadsheet models (used to do everything on those!), and did a hand check.

Ps: on another front, when we changed the loads input to "Tributary Area" - the allowable bending stress increased? Can't figure that one out!

Thanks,
Paul Guthrie

>>> "Gordon Goodell" <GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com> 02/05/2009 1:06 PM >>>

Paul,

There is a column for Cd factors on the load combination tab in both the wood beam and column modules.

regards,

Gordon Goodell

From: Paul Guthrie [mailto:PGuthrie@simivalley.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 1:01 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Adjustment Factors Cd for timber column

EC 6

>>> "Gordon Goodell" <GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com> 02/05/2009 10:21 AM >>>

Are you using EC5 or 6?

Gordon Goodell

From: Paul Guthrie [mailto:PGuthrie@simivalley.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:51 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Adjustment Factors Cd for timber column

My question is regarding EnerCalc: "For wood beam design we are unable to locate the input location for C_D,load duration factor

Paul

RE: Adjustment Factors Cd for timber column

Paul,

What version of EC 6 are you using? The latest update is 6.0.21. I have this version, and I can't duplicate your problem.

Wesley C. Werner

From: Paul Guthrie [mailto:PGuthrie@simivalley.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 5:12 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Adjustment Factors Cd for timber column

Gordon,

Yeah, we found those but for example the 1.25 applies only to the Lr not to the combination. We gave up, I used one of my spreadsheet models (used to do everything on those!), and did a hand check.

Ps: on another front, when we changed the loads input to "Tributary Area" - the allowable bending stress increased? Can't figure that one out!

Thanks,
Paul Guthrie

>>> "Gordon Goodell" <GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com> 02/05/2009 1:06 PM >>>

Paul,

There is a column for Cd factors on the load combination tab in both the wood beam and column modules.

regards,

Gordon Goodell

From: Paul Guthrie [mailto:PGuthrie@simivalley.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 1:01 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Adjustment Factors Cd for timber column

EC 6

>>> "Gordon Goodell" <GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com> 02/05/2009 10:21 AM >>>

Are you using EC5 or 6?

Gordon Goodell

From: Paul Guthrie [mailto:PGuthrie@simivalley.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:51 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Adjustment Factors Cd for timber column

My question is regarding EnerCalc: "For wood beam design we are unable to locate the input location for C_D,load duration factor

Paul

RE: Adjustment Factors Cd for timber column

Gordon,

Yeah, we found those but for example the 1.25 applies only to the Lr not to the combination. We gave up, I used one of my spreadsheet models (used to do everything on those!), and did a hand check.

Ps: on another front, when we changed the loads input to "Tributary Area" - the allowable bending stress increased? Can't figure that one out!

Thanks,
Paul Guthrie

>>> "Gordon Goodell" <GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com> 02/05/2009 1:06 PM >>>

Paul,

There is a column for Cd factors on the load combination tab in both the wood beam and column modules.

regards,

Gordon Goodell

From: Paul Guthrie [mailto:PGuthrie@simivalley.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 1:01 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Adjustment Factors Cd for timber column

EC 6

>>> "Gordon Goodell" <GordonGoodell@harmonydesigninc.com> 02/05/2009 10:21 AM >>>

Are you using EC5 or 6?

Gordon Goodell

From: Paul Guthrie [mailto:PGuthrie@simivalley.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:51 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Adjustment Factors Cd for timber column

My question is regarding EnerCalc: "For wood beam design we are unable to locate the input location for C_D,load duration factor

Paul

Re: Codes comparison

All of you, Thank you for your replies.

Rajendran, I'm not sure about the reason for asking us to use the UBC 97. Actually this comparison is for a company of the United States (sorry, some sort of confidentiality code prohibits us a lot of things, probably including this) and that has been the requirement. As a matter of fact, when structural consultants have came to Mexico in order to align all of us with the same design criteria, is the UBC-97 the one that is considered. Local codes are commonly used, many of them updated to the recent years. I'll certainly ask them about the reason of not using IBC2006 or ASCE 7. I'll let you know.

Mr. Sprague, I'll contact you on your mail address. Thank you very much.

Benjamin

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Padmanabhan Rajendran <prajendran@ymail.com> wrote:

I am curious: Why is there a reference to UBC-97 when it is so outdated. Any company that is ISO 9000 certified is required to use latest codes. It surprises me that several equipment vendors have not revised their software or spreadsheets to be in line with IBC or ASCE 7 procedures.

Rajendran

--- On Thu, 2/5/09, Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Codes comparison
To: seaint@seaint.org
Date: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 2:27 AM

Your English requires no excuse. It is probably better than MY English and decidedly better than my Spanish. I would urge you to purchase not only the IBC 2006 but also the ASCE 7-05.

Some of the most fundamental differences are in the seismic and wind provisions. As such, the seismic provisions of the IBC and ASCE 7 have evolved from the NEHRP Provisions. There are many helpful documents that will provide seismic design guidance at: http://www.bssconline.org/

The starting point of the seismic section is the use of the Ss and S1 values to define the ground shaking. Some of the values you will need for South America are contained in the UFC 3-310-01.
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_310_01.pdf

I hope that you find this helpful.

Regards, Harold Sprague

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:29:57 -0600
Subject: Codes comparison
From: barcosr@gmail.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

Hi everyone,

The company I work for is usually asked for comparing the regulations included in the UBC-97 with those included in the local codes for several structural projects performed in Latinamerica. I wonder if these comparisons are still meaningful or should be made with the IBC 2006. I'm not aware of the serious differences that might exist between UBC and IBC. Does anybody have an opinion about this?.. it is my intend to purchase the IBC 2006... so.. I''m very interested in your comments. Thanks in advance. As ususal, excuse me for my possible language mistakes.

Ing. Benjamin Arcos Reyes

Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check it out.

--
Atentamente,
\0>
.||
< \_

Ing. Benjamín Arcos Reyes.
Visita: http://www.senderodelpeje.blogspot.com/