Structural Engineering: 2009-03-01

Friday, March 6, 2009

RE: Sds for building elements and Connections

Robert,

Thanks for your response- I believe using the lower Sds for elements and connections is acceptable.

Larry

> Subject: RE: Sds for building elements and Connections
> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:02:55 -0700
> From: DocM@arwengineers.com
> To: seaint@seaint.org
>
> Larry,
>
> This is my first time responding to a question, so I don't know if I am doing this right or not, or if you will get this response or not. But, here goes . . .
>
> ASCE 12.14.7.5 for anchoring walls, refers to 12.14.8.1 when calculating the "design spectral response", Sds (which means you can use the reduced Sds=1.0), and 12.14.7.6 for designing bearing walls and shear walls, says to use the "design spectral response acceleration Sds". My interpretation is that these are both the same Sds used in 12.14.8.1.
>
> Best,
>
> Robert M. Moyle, SE
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lrhauer@earthlink.net [mailto:lrhauer@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 9:31 AM
> To: SEAOC
> Subject: Sds for building elements and Connections
>
> Thought I had sent this message yesterday, but didn't see it on the list server, so here it is again:
>
> I am designing a simple one story masonry building in a location where the Sds is 1.6. But since the structure meets all the requirements for design as a "Simple Bearing Wall" building, I am using a base shear per ASCE formula 12.14-11 which allows for a maximum Ss of 1.5 or an Sds of 1.0. I assume in reading ASCE section 11.4.1 and 11.4.4 that this lower Sds value can also apply to the design of the masonry walls and connections of walls to roof. Is my logic correct??
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Larry Hauer S.E.
>
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> y�e��E��i��0�ǚ�{h��E��8b�隊\�ǧ��2��i+k��n��D��y��(r&��}*.��&��+�&��
> ǫ��Ӣ˛��m��}稭Iҹ��&ަW��(��m�� ,y��ǚ�+-ի)B笶*'��,y��ly��E鞙��j|��ʋ�zwm��^�+-��nnX�v��v�vf�m�ަ�-y�"�.�*.��+,��jG��+h��nȭy�a�� 0�梞�+

Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.

RE: Direct Analysis Method

One point of caution on this subject:
There are a lot of ways to do a 2nd order analysis, and even the some of the
well respected methods may need "adjustment" in some cases. Usually when you
have lateral load applied between floor levels, or when you have a
cantilevered column.

Therefore, it is a good idea to validate your program using the "Benchmark"
problems that AISC gives in the commentary to their Appendix 7. These
problems tend to put too much emphasis and importance on the P-little delta
effect (which is where even some of the "rigorous" methods have difficulty).
But, that ends up being a good thing.... Because, if you can prove that your
program can handle these problems, then you can have that much more
confidence that the program will handle the more common situations.

Simply put, those benchmark problems give you guys (the real practicing
engineers) a relatively easy test method to determine if your analysis
software is up to snuff.

Below is a link to a different white paper on the subject (this one written
by me). The link also includes the slides from a short presentation I gave
at the 2007 North American Steel Construction Conference (NASCC).... Just as
importantly, the download also includes the actual RISA files used to run
those AISC benchmark tests (graphs of which are shown in the paper and
presentation).

http://www.risatech.com/documents/pdfs/RISA+DirectAnalysis.zip

I hope that this information ends up being useful!

Sincerely,

Josh Plummer, SE

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Message:0003 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Newton <matthew.newton@cscworld.com>
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Subject: Direct Analysis Method

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C99D70.6D447230
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

CSC recently published an article about the direct analysis.

The 2005 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings brings
significant changes to the way stability analysis and design is required to
be carried out. For the first time, the specification has something to say
about the analysis you and your design software is performing. Do you know
how your favorite software package has implemented the new requirements?
Does it simply meet the minimum code requirements using old methods intended
more for hand calculations or does your software offer you the most
accurate, reliable and flexible tools available?

thanks,

Matthew.

_____

Matthew Newton
CSC Inc

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

Sds for building elements and Connections

Thought I had sent this message yesterday, but didn't see it on the list server, so here it is again:

I am designing a simple one story masonry building in a location where the Sds is 1.6. But since the structure meets all the requirements for design as a "Simple Bearing Wall" building, I am using a base shear per ASCE formula 12.14-11 which allows for a maximum Ss of 1.5 or an Sds of 1.0. I assume in reading ASCE section 11.4.1 and 11.4.4 that this lower Sds value can also apply to the design of the masonry walls and connections of walls to roof. Is my logic correct??

Thanks in advance,

Larry Hauer S.E.

Sds for Elements in Buildings

Windows Live™ Groups: Create an online spot for your favorite groups to meet. Check it out.

Use of Sds fior Elements of Buildings

Windows Live™ Groups: Create an online spot for your favorite groups to meet. Check it out.

Use of Sds fior Elements of Buildings

Windows Live™ Groups: Create an online spot for your favorite groups to meet. Check it out.

Re: ASCE 7 Wind Loads on Bare Steel Framing - Opinions Wanted

Bill,

Anyone that has his company’s support to contribute a lot all at once or less, but over a period of years should volunteer. It’s tough to contribute for long enough to really help when times like these occur. Companies scale back unessential activities.

More power to you and all that are at work on those committees.

Jim Getaz

test e-mail 2

This is simply a test of the e-mail system

Test e-mail

Thursday, March 5, 2009

RE: ASCE 7 Wind Loads on Bare Steel Framing - Opinions Wanted

Bill,
Yes. I do a lot of industrial stuff. I serve on several committees including the Seismic Task Committee of ASCE 7. I would like to see more in the commentary especially when it comes to industrial structures.

I would encourage anyone that wishes to contribute to do so.

Regards, Harold Sprague

From: bill@polhemus.cc
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: ASCE 7 Wind Loads on Bare Steel Framing - Opinions Wanted
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:22:25 -0600

I personally think all this stuff should be in ASCE 7 and Commentary. Harold, don't you still do a lot of industrial stuff? Are you currently on ASCE 7 committee? Should I volunteer?

William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.

Via iPhone 3G

On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:03 AM, Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> wrote:

The drag coefficients developed in the ASCE Wind Loads and Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities should still be valid. However there have been many advances in wind pressure development including the wind velocities. In the ideal world, we would have an updated version of the ASCE Wind Loads and Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities. However, we are not there yet. I would opt for a blend.

Remind your colleague about the difference in the fastest mile vs. the 3 second gust change that happened with the ASCE 7-95.

Regards, Harold Sprague

From: bill@polhemus.cc
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: ASCE 7 Wind Loads on Bare Steel Framing - Opinions Wanted
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:07:38 -0500

Lots of pipe racks to look at. Very fascinating.
(P.S. Not really).
Years ago when the ASCE 7 standard was focused almost exclusively on building structures, we used to have rules of thumb for applying wind loads to these kinds of "lattice" structures like pipe racks and large structural steel bare frames. There were all sorts of arguments about "shielding" of one member from another, for example.
ASCE published a guideline back in the 90s ("Wind Loads and Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities") to help establish some consensus regarding how to apply loads to these structures. It was based on the state of the art at that time - ASCE 7-93 or -95 IIRC - which of course has changed quite a bit since then.
ASCE 7-05 was significant in that it added quite a few commonly-seen but previously unaddressed systems, like canopy roofs and braced steel towers, to the provisions for calculating wind loads. But there are still some questions in my mind at least.
It seems easy enough to apply provisions for "Open Signs and Lattice Frameworks" (ASCE 7-05 Fig. 6-22) and "Trussed Towers" (Fig. 6-23), for example, but it is NOT obvious that these are correct.
It seems to me that a colleague and I did a comparison with the ASCE "Petrochemical Facilities" publication procedure, and ASCE 7-05 using Fig. 6-22, and it came pretty darn close. I have been a proponent of going with ASCE 7-05 but I have "older" colleagues who don't much like change, and insist that since the older ASCE "Petrochemical Facilities" publication was good enough "then," it should be good enough now.
Opinions?

Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list. Check it out.

Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail®. See how.

Sds values for elements

I am designing a simple one story CMU structure where the actual Sds value is 1.6 for the location. I can meet all the criteria for designing the structure using the "Simplfied Alternative" procedure of Section 12.14 of the ASCE, and Section 12.14.8.1 allows the use of an Sds of 1.0 based on a maximum Ss of 1.5. When desiigning the masonry wall elements and their attachments, can I still use the reduced Sds for the design of these elements as I used for the "seismic base shear" or do I have to use the actual Sds of 1.6?

Thanks in advance,

Larry Hauer S.E.

Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail®. See how.

Direct Analysis Method

This download process is sooooooo weird.
What's the use of me typing random numbers into these fields?

Do you mind if I just upload a copy to Scribd so people can actually see it?

> Matthew Newton wrote:
>
> CSC recently published an article about the direct analysis.
>
>
>
> The 2005 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings brings
> significant changes to the way stability analysis and design is required to
> be carried out. For the first time, the specification has something to say
> about the analysis you and your design software is performing. Do you know
> how your favorite software package has implemented the new requirements?
> Does it simply meet the minimum code requirements using old methods intended
> more for hand calculations or does your software offer you the most
> accurate, reliable and flexible tools available?
>
>
>
> http://services.cscworld.com/downloads/whitepapers/State_of_the_Industry_DAM_Full.pdf
>
>
>
> thanks,
>
>
>
> Matthew.
>

--
Alexander Bausk
CAD manager, Structural engineer at
Nuclear Engineering&Research Lab
Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine

Re: Direct Analysis Method

Hey, Matthew - how about a direct link to the white paper?

Jordan

Matthew Newton wrote:

CSC recently published an article about the direct analysis.

The 2005 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings brings significant changes to the way stability analysis and design is required to be carried out. For the first time, the specification has something to say about the analysis you and your design software is performing. Do you know how your favorite software package has implemented the new requirements? Does it simply meet the minimum code requirements using old methods intended more for hand calculations or does your software offer you the most accurate, reliable and flexible tools available?

http://services.cscworld.com/downloads/whitepapers/State_of_the_Industry_DAM_Full.pdf

thanks,

Matthew.

Matthew Newton
CSC Inc

Phone:    (877) 710-2053

Fax:         (312) 321 6489

Direct:      (312) 233 2912

Email:     matthew.newton@cscworld.com

Website:   www.cscworld.com

This e-mail transmission is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in this transmission is strictly PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify me by email at the above address. Thank you.

Re: ASCE 7 Wind Loads on Bare Steel Framing - Opinions Wanted

Via iPhone 3G

On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:03 AM, Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> wrote:

The drag coefficients developed in the ASCE Wind Loads and Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities should still be valid. However there have been many advances in wind pressure development including the wind velocities. In the ideal world, we would have an updated version of the ASCE Wind Loads and Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities. However, we are not there yet. I would opt for a blend.

Remind your colleague about the difference in the fastest mile vs. the 3 second gust change that happened with the ASCE 7-95.

Regards, Harold Sprague

From: bill@polhemus.cc
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: ASCE 7 Wind Loads on Bare Steel Framing - Opinions Wanted
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:07:38 -0500

Lots of pipe racks to look at. Very fascinating.
(P.S. Not really).
Years ago when the ASCE 7 standard was focused almost exclusively on building structures, we used to have rules of thumb for applying wind loads to these kinds of "lattice" structures like pipe racks and large structural steel bare frames. There were all sorts of arguments about "shielding" of one member from another, for example.
ASCE published a guideline back in the 90s ("Wind Loads and Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities") to help establish some consensus regarding how to apply loads to these structures. It was based on the state of the art at that time - ASCE 7-93 or -95 IIRC - which of course has changed quite a bit since then.
ASCE 7-05 was significant in that it added quite a few commonly-seen but previously unaddressed systems, like canopy roofs and braced steel towers, to the provisions for calculating wind loads. But there are still some questions in my mind at least.
It seems easy enough to apply provisions for "Open Signs and Lattice Frameworks" (ASCE 7-05 Fig. 6-22) and "Trussed Towers" (Fig. 6-23), for example, but it is NOT obvious that these are correct.
It seems to me that a colleague and I did a comparison with the ASCE "Petrochemical Facilities" publication procedure, and ASCE 7-05 using Fig. 6-22, and it came pretty darn close. I have been a proponent of going with ASCE 7-05 but I have "older" colleagues who don't much like change, and insist that since the older ASCE "Petrochemical Facilities" publication was good enough "then," it should be good enough now.
Opinions?

Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list. Check it out.

RE: Haunch Moment Connetion Design Reference

Return Receipt

Your RE: Haunch Moment Connetion Design Reference
document:

was Tom Hunt/AV/FD/FluorCorp
received
by:

at: 03/05/2009 07:19:22 PST

------------------------------------------------------------
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: Haunch Moment Connetion Design Reference

I did a paper on this college – there really isn’t a whole lot out there that isn’t more than 50 years dated… but according to one of my later college books ASCE manual 41 page 167-186 (not certain of the year) should have some of this info. I haven’t seen this for myself, so I can’t attest to the information, but I figure it could help, and could have some further references for you.

From: Sushil Chauhan [mailto:sxchauhan@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 8:51 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Haunch Moment Connetion Design Reference

Could you please publish following message on the mailing list.

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

We have been arguing here whether Chapter 6 of AISC Design Guide 12 can be used for regular projects (non-retrofit) in non-seismic zones for designing Haunch Moment Connections. Could you please help on following items:

1) Can we use the force transfer model assumed in Chapter 6 of ASIC Design Guide 12 for elastic design also? I mean instead of using Vpd , Mpd can we use actual factored moments and shears ? To me it appears reasonable approach, but I might be wrong.

2) Could you please tell 2-3 good references for design of Haunch Moment Connections? In our case Haunch web is welded to bottom flange of Beam and bolted with end plate on Column flange.

I appreciate your input on this.

Thanks & Regards,

Sushil

Direct Analysis Method

CSC recently published an article about the direct analysis.

The 2005 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings brings significant changes to the way stability analysis and design is required to be carried out. For the first time, the specification has something to say about the analysis you and your design software is performing. Do you know how your favorite software package has implemented the new requirements? Does it simply meet the minimum code requirements using old methods intended more for hand calculations or does your software offer you the most accurate, reliable and flexible tools available?

http://services.cscworld.com/downloads/whitepapers/State_of_the_Industry_DAM_Full.pdf

thanks,

Matthew.

Matthew Newton
CSC Inc

Phone: (877) 710-2053

Fax: (312) 321 6489

Direct: (312) 233 2912

Email: matthew.newton@cscworld.com

Website: www.cscworld.com

This e-mail transmission is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in this transmission is strictly PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify me by email at the above address. Thank you.

Haunch Moment Connetion Design Reference

Could you please publish following message on the mailing list.

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

2) Could you please tell 2-3 good references for design of Haunch Moment Connections? In our case Haunch web is welded to bottom flange of Beam and bolted with end plate on Column flange.

I appreciate your input on this.

Thanks & Regards,

Sushil

Re: ASCE 7 Wind Loads on Bare Steel Framing - Opinions Wanted

A lot of wind load studies came out of the University of Western Ontario
doing wind tunnel tests on models of structures, under Dr Davenport in
the 60's thru 70's. Others also were doing similar tests elsewhere, but
I think Davenport was one of the first. All of these tests have been
reflected in the codes along with results from testing in actual
structures. This does not help but gives a little perspective.
Gary

bill@polhemus.cc wrote:
>
> Lots of pipe racks to look at. Very fascinating.
>
> (P.S. Not really).
>
> Years ago when the ASCE 7 standard was focused almost exclusively on
> building structures, we used to have rules of thumb for applying wind
> loads to these kinds of "lattice" structures like pipe racks and large
> structural steel bare frames. There were all sorts of arguments about
> "shielding" of one member from another, for example.
>
> ASCE published a guideline back in the 90s ("Wind Loads and Anchor
> Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities") to help establish some
> consensus regarding how to apply loads to these structures. It was
> based on the state of the art at that time - ASCE 7-93 or -95 IIRC -
> which of course has changed quite a bit since then.
>
> ASCE 7-05 was significant in that it added quite a few commonly-seen
> but previously unaddressed systems, like canopy roofs and braced steel
> towers, to the provisions for calculating wind loads. But there are
> still some questions in my mind at least.
>
> It seems easy enough to apply provisions for "Open Signs and Lattice
> Frameworks" (ASCE 7-05 Fig. 6-22) and "Trussed Towers" (Fig. 6-23),
> for example, but it is NOT obvious that these are correct.
>
> It seems to me that a colleague and I did a comparison with the ASCE
> "Petrochemical Facilities" publication procedure, and ASCE 7-05 using
> Fig. 6-22, and it came pretty darn close. I have been a proponent of
> going with ASCE 7-05 but I have "older" colleagues who don't much like
> change, and insist that since the older ASCE "Petrochemical
> Facilities" publication was good enough "then," it should be good
> enough now.
>
> Opinions?
>

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

RE: ASCE 7 Wind Loads on Bare Steel Framing - Opinions Wanted

The drag coefficients developed in the ASCE Wind Loads and Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities should still be valid. However there have been many advances in wind pressure development including the wind velocities. In the ideal world, we would have an updated version of the ASCE Wind Loads and Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities. However, we are not there yet. I would opt for a blend.

Remind your colleague about the difference in the fastest mile vs. the 3 second gust change that happened with the ASCE 7-95.

Regards, Harold Sprague

From: bill@polhemus.cc
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: ASCE 7 Wind Loads on Bare Steel Framing - Opinions Wanted
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:07:38 -0500

Lots of pipe racks to look at. Very fascinating.
(P.S. Not really).
Years ago when the ASCE 7 standard was focused almost exclusively on building structures, we used to have rules of thumb for applying wind loads to these kinds of "lattice" structures like pipe racks and large structural steel bare frames. There were all sorts of arguments about "shielding" of one member from another, for example.
ASCE published a guideline back in the 90s ("Wind Loads and Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities") to help establish some consensus regarding how to apply loads to these structures. It was based on the state of the art at that time - ASCE 7-93 or -95 IIRC - which of course has changed quite a bit since then.
ASCE 7-05 was significant in that it added quite a few commonly-seen but previously unaddressed systems, like canopy roofs and braced steel towers, to the provisions for calculating wind loads. But there are still some questions in my mind at least.
It seems easy enough to apply provisions for "Open Signs and Lattice Frameworks" (ASCE 7-05 Fig. 6-22) and "Trussed Towers" (Fig. 6-23), for example, but it is NOT obvious that these are correct.
It seems to me that a colleague and I did a comparison with the ASCE "Petrochemical Facilities" publication procedure, and ASCE 7-05 using Fig. 6-22, and it came pretty darn close. I have been a proponent of going with ASCE 7-05 but I have "older" colleagues who don't much like change, and insist that since the older ASCE "Petrochemical Facilities" publication was good enough "then," it should be good enough now.
Opinions?

Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list. Check it out.

RE: Moxie and impermeabilising concrete

If you are looking at a product to reduce moisture content for adhered flooring on a concrete slab on grade, Moxie might hold promise. But there is also a lot of competition. Even though there are topically applied products that reduce moisture vapor for a SOG, I still prefer the vapor barrier under the slab.

Regards, Harold Sprague

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 23:04:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Moxie and impermeabilising concrete
From: kbofoz@gmail.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

Thanks Harold. So I won't hang around by my fingernails waiting for the perfect product. How about being impermeable enough to eliminate the vapor barrier under a slab-on-grade ? They claim some impressive figures on their tests, but I haven't yet compared those figures to see if they really are impressive.

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> wrote:

Get the testing per NCHRP 244 to tell the wheat from the chaff. If you are expecting it to be impermeable, you will be disappointed. Test the penetration (Pre and Post application) with a Rilum Tube test. The penetration is minimal no matter what. There is also an AASHTO test which requires abrasion, but you will not find a product that is very effective. You will have to recoat about every 3 to 5 years depending on the concrete and its resistance to abrasion. The problem is that the harder the concrete the more it cracks.

The Canadians do a lot of testing with coatings on concrete.

If you find that perfect product, let me know.

Regards, Harold Sprague

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:59:35 -0500
Subject: Moxie and impermeabilising concrete
From: kbofoz@gmail.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

There is some interesting info from Moxie about impermeabilising concrete at http://www.moxie-intl.com/

Anyone had any experience with these products? Silicone-based - are they similar to Xypex?

I'd love to find a product that works to protect parking decks from de-icing salts without a membrane, avoiding the maintenance problems and the cost.

Kevin

Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. See how it works.

Windows Live™: Life without walls. Check it out.

RE: ASCE 7 Wind Loads on Bare Steel Framing - Opinions Wanted

Bill,

From the commentary to ASCE7-05, apparently AS1170.2 is one of the sources
of coefficients for canopies: from what I can tell those coefficients have
been in AS1170.2 since the 1970's: so some history of being reasonable.
AS1170.2 also includes drag coefficients for airflow over corrugated and
ribbed cladding for walls and roofs. I cannot seem to find equivalent in
ASCE7-05.

As for open frames AS1170.2 contains drag force coefficients for various
structual sections: I-beams, channels, etc. The code also permits shielding,
but when the wind is at 45 degrees to the orthogonal axes of the structure
little shielding is available for simple rectangular frames (eg. carport, or
building frames during construction).

I cannot find similar coefficients in ASCE7-05, it seems to be focused on
the section of the chimney, or tower. It seems to me such approach may under
estimate the forces on the individual framing elements.

Drag forces on individual elements or whole frames can be high. I've seen a
photo of 6 gable frames (in the UK), they were left over the weekend:
Monday morning they were all folded to the ground about the I-beam weak
axis. (The beams looked fairly large about 610mm deep, possibly bigger.)

If I could find the picture again it would be good to show the builders who
keep telling me: for 30 years they've never had a problem so why should they
prop and brace the frames during construction.

As for which code to use. I prefer at least two approaches where possible.
Older codes hopefully provide calibration for newer codes. If the older code
produces more conservative results go with the older code: at least the
older code is tried and tested in the field. Often reduction in newer codes
are a consequence of missing out important constraints and conditions, which
are later reinstated. If newer code more conservative go with that.

Otherwise it's a risk management issue, if there is no mandated legal
requirement to use one code or the other. If older code easier to use, and
faster, and more expertise available to check its application, then the
older code may be the better choice. Possibly incorporate additional design
factor of ignorance to allow for what don't know about the new code.

It also depends on the critical factor. In Australia wind loading in
AS1170.2 is ultimate strength. Separate codes for cranes, antennas, power
poles, and industrial racking define serviceability requirements. The wind
loads in these codes seem low, but when the deflection limits imposed are
taken into account the ultimate strength of the structure can end up much
greater, than if we started the design with ultimate strength load: but not
always the case. Since 2002, AS1170.2 has permitted the calculation of basic
wind speed for any return period or annual probablity of exceedance. I
expect the more specialised codes to remove their low design wind speeds,
which tend to be seen as non-compliance with AS1170.2 and replace with
probability requirements. Thus achieving inceased consistency.

The way I see it, in similar manner to AS1170.2, ASCE7-05 is becoming a
single point reference for all loading requirements: the expected reference
to be used by all structural engineers. The market for engineering services
is variable, an engineer who can only use simplifications in IBC, would take
time to get upto speed when building market drops and industrial market
expands. If only use the one code than already upto speed. Also the market
place for engineering services is becoming more international, and ASCE7-05
is more aligned with the ISO guidelines: thus AS1170.2 and ASCE7-05 are
similar but not equal. Thus industrial/petrochemical structures designed to
ASCE7-05 in the USA and imported into Australia likely to be found compliant
with AS1170.2, those designed to UBC/IBC: more likely to be rejected or
involve extensive recalculation before accepted.

So whilst have the experience available for the older code and experience of
acceptable design-solutions, run with the new code (ASCE7-05), check and
calibrate design-solutions against the old code (ASCE Petrochemical
facilities), and where necessary set company policy and design procedure:
assuming resources permit. Thus eventually move over to ASCE7-05 and be
better placed internationally.

Just a few thoughts for consideration.

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

Re: Moxie and impermeabilising concrete

Thanks Harold. So I won't hang around by my fingernails waiting for the perfect product. How about being impermeable enough to eliminate the vapor barrier under a slab-on-grade ? They claim some impressive figures on their tests, but I haven't yet compared those figures to see if they really are impressive.

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:45 AM, Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com> wrote:

Get the testing per NCHRP 244 to tell the wheat from the chaff. If you are expecting it to be impermeable, you will be disappointed. Test the penetration (Pre and Post application) with a Rilum Tube test. The penetration is minimal no matter what. There is also an AASHTO test which requires abrasion, but you will not find a product that is very effective. You will have to recoat about every 3 to 5 years depending on the concrete and its resistance to abrasion. The problem is that the harder the concrete the more it cracks.

The Canadians do a lot of testing with coatings on concrete.

If you find that perfect product, let me know.

Regards, Harold Sprague

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:59:35 -0500
Subject: Moxie and impermeabilising concrete
From: kbofoz@gmail.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

There is some interesting info from Moxie about impermeabilising concrete at http://www.moxie-intl.com/

Anyone had any experience with these products? Silicone-based - are they similar to Xypex?

I'd love to find a product that works to protect parking decks from de-icing salts without a membrane, avoiding the maintenance problems and the cost.

Kevin

Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. See how it works.

Re: Re-grading of Lumber

Talk about disaster!

Best is to contact the Grading Agencies.

Farzin S. Rahbar, SE
David C. Weiss Structural Engineer & Associates, Inc.
(818) 227-8040 Ex. 13 Fax: (818) 227-8041

In a message dated 3/4/2009 12:32:32 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, oshin@sdgseinc.com writes:

Dear List Members,

I have a residential project under construction where the framing was
sprayed with wood preservative. Subsequently, the preservative had to be
removed by sand blasting and grinding. As a result, all framing members now
have reduced cross sections.

Obviously, the framing has to be checked for the reduced section capacity,
but is it mandated or required in any grading rules or in the IBC that the
lumber has to be re-graded. The building official is requiring that each
piece of framing be re-graded by a grading agency.

Oshin Tosounian, S.E.

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

A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

Re-grading of Lumber

Dear List Members,

I have a residential project under construction where the framing was
sprayed with wood preservative. Subsequently, the preservative had to be
removed by sand blasting and grinding. As a result, all framing members now
have reduced cross sections.

Obviously, the framing has to be checked for the reduced section capacity,
but is it mandated or required in any grading rules or in the IBC that the
lumber has to be re-graded. The building official is requiring that each
piece of framing be re-graded by a grading agency.

Oshin Tosounian, S.E.

RISA and Direct Analysis Method

I realize I could ask the "RISA guys" this question, but I thought I'd ask it here because there may be someone here who has already done so, and it might benefit others to hear the answer, if there is one.

I note that the latest version of RISA-3D, Version 8.x, claims to have the provisions of the AISC 360-05 Appendix 7 "Direct Analysis Method" built in. This is handy because it allows us to ignore the ******* "Effective Length Factor" (K) that we've known and loathed for as long as I've been doing this stuff.

You enable this by indicating whether the member in question is a "Lateral" or "Gravity" resisting member, and supposedly the program does the rest.

However, I notice that the "K" factor entry is still with us in RISA. So what gives? Does the program IGNORE the presence of a "K" factor input? Or does it affect the computations in the programs if it is there, even using Direct Analysis?

Anyone know?

ASCE 7 Wind Loads on Bare Steel Framing - Opinions Wanted

Lots of pipe racks to look at. Very fascinating.

(P.S. Not really).

Years ago when the ASCE 7 standard was focused almost exclusively on building structures, we used to have rules of thumb for applying wind loads to these kinds of "lattice" structures like pipe racks and large structural steel bare frames. There were all sorts of arguments about "shielding" of one member from another, for example.

ASCE published a guideline back in the 90s ("Wind Loads and Anchor Bolt Design for Petrochemical Facilities") to help establish some consensus regarding how to apply loads to these structures. It was based on the state of the art at that time - ASCE 7-93 or -95 IIRC - which of course has changed quite a bit since then.

ASCE 7-05 was significant in that it added quite a few commonly-seen but previously unaddressed systems, like canopy roofs and braced steel towers, to the provisions for calculating wind loads. But there are still some questions in my mind at least.

It seems easy enough to apply provisions for "Open Signs and Lattice Frameworks" (ASCE 7-05 Fig. 6-22) and "Trussed Towers" (Fig. 6-23), for example, but it is NOT obvious that these are correct.

It seems to me that a colleague and I did a comparison with the ASCE "Petrochemical Facilities" publication procedure, and ASCE 7-05 using Fig. 6-22, and it came pretty darn close. I have been a proponent of going with ASCE 7-05 but I have "older" colleagues who don't much like change, and insist that since the older ASCE "Petrochemical Facilities" publication was good enough "then," it should be good enough now.

Opinions?

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Re: Standing Seam Metal Roofing Wind Uplift Calculations

In my terminology:
Architectural panels are mounted on a substrate such as plywood or closely
spaced strapping with fastener clips every 12" - 24" +/-.
Structural panels are self-supporting, usually multi-span between
purlins/girts at 5' - 6' +/-.
Typically continuous cold-formed from coil but possibly formed from sheet.

Numerical analysis per AISI is a good start point for regular panels.
Watching a gage-thickness metal panel assembly during wind load tests really
makes one wonder how the idealized analysis even comes close. Discard any
thoughts of small deformations.

I conducted some verification tests on a 16" steel panel profile (vertical
ribs topped by a folded male-female seam) several years ago and the side
seams came undone like a zipper at low up-lift test pressures (AISI analysis
does not address this failure mode). It raised a few eyebrows because it
was/is a popular structural panel.

Paul

> From: "Oshin Tosounian" <oshin@sdgseinc.com>
> To: <seaint@seaint.org>
> Subject: RE: Standing Seam Metal Roofing Wind Uplift Calculations
>
> Thank you Paul,
>
> FYI, the project is in Los Angeles and it involves zinc roof and wall panels
> with standing seams that lap together at about 16" spacing (custom made).
> Whether you call these structural or architectural, they need to be shown by
> calculations and testing to meet the performance criteria set in the project
> specifications, including 30psf inward or outward wind pressure.
>
> Oshin Tosounian, S.E.

Rebar pull test

I have some #11 rebar dowels set in
concrete piers. The contractor has
reason to believe that they did not get
fully developed and wants a pull test.
I don't have access to the design
tension load. What load will I need to
have a testing agency apply to satisfy
requirements?
Any ideas what agency might do this type
of test (Dallas area)? Your typical
concrete lab doesn't do this.

Jerry D. Coombs

Re: IT question

You can usually hear a hard drive flailing away...but many computers also have an indicator light on the front.

Regards,

Scott

Adrian, MI

On Mar 3, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Thor Tandy wrote:

Yes, I worked with Norton tech for about 3 hrs. We did a complete uninstall with the Norton tool, checked the system without any Norton and then loaded the latest Norton version for XP. We did, however, with some tweaking of settings managed to get the IExplorer usage down a bit so I think Norton had something to do with it. Norton has always been a hog on resources but this time I think it's something else (as well). I would dump it but I have a year of subscription left.

How do I monitor the hard drive usage?

I empty all caches, temp files etc. on a regular basis and I have bags of HDD space and RAM.

Thor

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:00 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: IT question

How did you remove Norton? With the Add/Remove in Windoze? If so, then try the Norton Removal tool:

http://service1.symantec.com/Support/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039?OpenDocument&seg=ag&lg=en&ct=us

The Add/Remove of Windoze uses the "base" uninstall function that comes with Norton Anti-virus...which is crappy and does not remove everything properly. Thus, Symantec made a removal tool to cure their own crappy uninstall program/function. The thing to be aware of is that it removes ALL Symantec/Norton programs...so if there is some Norton program that you still want (i.e. say Ghost, etc), then you will have to reinstall them.

Symantec/Norton lost me. I was tired of dealing with their bloatware that ate resources wholeheartedly. So, I dumped my Norton Anti-virus a few years ago and switched to Avast. It does not take NEAR the resources that Norton did (and McAffee was just as bad).

This may or may not solve your problem, but if you want to try removing Norton, then make sure you get the removal tool and "do it right".

Beyond that, I would suggestion also getting SuperAntiSpyware and running it. And try running it and Norton (if you have it still installed or whatever new anti-virus you have installed) in Safe Mode.

How much memory do you have installed on the computer? Which OS? XP or Vista? How full is your hard drive? Does the hard drive access also spike or is it purely CPU usage? I ask because I am wondering if you are running out of physical memory and the system is forced into using virtual memory (i.e. the hard drive). The other thing to check is the IE cache. Have you emptied the IE cache recently? If not and the drive is getting full, then that might contribute to it. And just in general systems tend to do weird stuff when they get down to very low disk space.

Regards,

Scott

Adrian, MI

On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Thor Tandy wrote:

This is not structural,however, I have a weird computer problem that eludes resolution.

During a recent webcast I found that I kept losing internet connectivity. I blamed the webcaster and then Norton but that was not the case.

1) When I am in Outlook my CPU usage climbs to 65%+. It often peaks to 100% at which time it gags. Problem only exists when using Outlook and/or IExplorer.

2) When I go online, browsing etc it climbs to 30%+ but often not high at all.

3) FTP/data/download transfers not significantly high unless I move about the browser.

4) Problem slows my keystrokes and everything so I can't keep the email on. Even as I type now the usage is at 70% ...

Does anyone have insight into what is happening in Outlook and/or IExplorer to cause this? I blamed Norton because I don't have this problem on other machines I have that don't have Norton but I uninstalled Norton and the symptom persisted.

I am thinking of doing a re-build ... but I don't have the time at the moment for that.

Thanks

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

RE: IT question

Thanks everyone.

There are some great leads. With so much experience with similar/same issue
out there, I may be able to nail it one way or the other.

I'm rather busy work-wise at the moment so I will probably carry out the
suggestions received over the weekend.

Thor T

-----Original Message-----
From: Drew Morris [mailto:dmorris@bbfm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:58 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: IT question

I run XP and had a similar problem with Internet Explorer. It had some
sort of virus/malware and would connect to the Internet and play ads. I
brought up task manager and could see iexplore.exe running. I would
cancel the process, but it would start up again. I tried to uninstall
Internet Explorer but wasn't sure if it worked. I ended up finding all
copies of iexplore.exe and renamed them. I installed AVG (was running
Norton) and reinstalled Internet Explorer. I am not sure what got
through my system, but Norton didn't catch it. I am not sure what
percentage of the system resources were being used, but I was spooked
when my computer would start playing ads in the background.

Alexander Bausk wrote:
> Thor,
>
> a virus it is, some kind of a spyware. See for example:
> http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread79222.html
> http://www.liutilities.com/products/wintaskspro/processlibrary/iexplorer/
>
> There are different spyware and trojan codes that mimick the iexplore
process.
>
> I suggest downloading a free antivirus scanner like DrWeb CureIt:
> http://www.freedrweb.com/cureit/
> And scanning your system repeatedly.
>
> For those with svchost.exe, it is infected, too. I don't remember what
> kind of virus it is (looks like Kido/Conficker) but you should get rid
> of it. It usually comes on flash drives or via local network. It is
> able to use your computer as a zombie to attack servers via the
> internet.
> The Kido pandemic is a current nightmare:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker
>
> If it is a home PC, I'd simply reformat the HDD and reinstall the OS
> if I were you.
> The mentioned utility can clean up your hard drive but some of these
> viruses irreversibly corrupt the system registry (unless you have a PC
> geek friend handy to repair it).
>
> Regards, Alex.
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:13 AM, <jrgrill@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> I had pretty similar experience today. IE was locking up on a regular
basis.
>> I received an error message concerning problems with Adobe Flash. Iwent
to
>> Adobe website and uninstalled then reinstalled a newer version of Flash
per
>> their instructions. I then talked to IT with my internet provider who had
me
>> do what Thor suggested, sort of. Went to IE Tools/Options/Advanced then
>> "Reset". I lost some ad ons, but not "Favorites". Seems to be fine now.
IE
>> was locking up for some time before I got the message about Flash. I did
>> reinstall Flash before the reset so I can't say if Flash was involved or
>> not.
>> Joe Grill
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: "Thor Tandy"
>> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:36:24 -0800
>> To: <seaint@seaint.org>
>> Subject: RE: IT question
>>
>> Thank you. I'll give it a whirl later tonight.
>>
>> Thor
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yi Yang [mailto:YI@summit-sr.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 4:29 PM
>> To: seaint@seaint.org
>> Subject: RE: IT question
>>
>> Thor,
>>
>> A few things you can try.
>>
>> 1. Disable Add-Ons in IE. (Tools --> Manage Add-ons).
>> 2. If you are using Word for email editor, try to disable that.
(Tools ->
>> Options --> Mail Format)
>> 3. Start Outlook in safe mode, see if you experience the same problem.
>> (Start --> Run --> "outlook / safe", or hold down the Ctrl key while
you
>> start Outlook).
>>
>> If the safe mode solves the problem, while you are in safe mode, go
>> to"Help", "About", and click on "Disabled Items", and hopefully that will
>> help you to narrow down the suspects.
>>
>> If all these don't work, you can try to run "Hijackthis" from Trend
Micro,
>> while you have IE and Outlook running. You should be able find some
>> resources online to help you deciphering the log.
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>> YI YANG, S.E.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Thor Tandy [mailto:vicpeng@telus.net]
>> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:15 PM
>> To: SEAINT
>> Subject: IT question
>>
>> This is not structural,however, I have a weird computer problem that
eludes
>> resolution.
>>
>> During a recent webcast I found that I kept losing internet connectivity.
I
>> blamed the webcaster and then Norton but that was not the case.
>>
>> 1) When I am in Outlook my CPU usage climbs to 65%+. It often peaks to
>> 100% at which time it gags. Problem only exists when using Outlook
and/or
>> IExplorer.
>>
>> 2) When I go online, browsing etc it climbs to 30%+ but often not high
at
>> all.
>>
>> 3) FTP/data/download transfers not significantly high unless I move
about
>> the browser.
>>
>> 4) Problem slows my keystrokes and everything so I can't keep the email
>> on. Even as I type now the usage is at 70% ...
>>
>> Does anyone have insight into what is happening in Outlook and/or
IExplorer
>> to cause this? I blamed Norton because I don't have this problem on
other
>> machines I have that don't have Norton but I uninstalled Norton and the
>> symptom persisted.
>>
>> I am thinking of doing a re-build ... but I don't have the time at the
>> moment for that.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, C.Eng, Struct.Eng, MIStructE
>> Victoria, BC
>> Canada
>>
>
>
>
>

RE: IT question

Yes, I worked with Norton tech for about 3 hrs. We did a complete uninstall with the Norton tool, checked the system without any Norton and then loaded the latest Norton version for XP. We did, however, with some tweaking of settings managed to get the IExplorer usage down a bit so I think Norton had something to do with it. Norton has always been a hog on resources but this time I think it's something else (as well). I would dump it but I have a year of subscription left.

How do I monitor the hard drive usage?

I empty all caches, temp files etc. on a regular basis and I have bags of HDD space and RAM.

Thor

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:00 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: IT question

How did you remove Norton? With the Add/Remove in Windoze? If so, then try the Norton Removal tool:

http://service1.symantec.com/Support/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039?OpenDocument&seg=ag&lg=en&ct=us

The Add/Remove of Windoze uses the "base" uninstall function that comes with Norton Anti-virus...which is crappy and does not remove everything properly. Thus, Symantec made a removal tool to cure their own crappy uninstall program/function. The thing to be aware of is that it removes ALL Symantec/Norton programs...so if there is some Norton program that you still want (i.e. say Ghost, etc), then you will have to reinstall them.

Symantec/Norton lost me. I was tired of dealing with their bloatware that ate resources wholeheartedly. So, I dumped my Norton Anti-virus a few years ago and switched to Avast. It does not take NEAR the resources that Norton did (and McAffee was just as bad).

This may or may not solve your problem, but if you want to try removing Norton, then make sure you get the removal tool and "do it right".

Beyond that, I would suggestion also getting SuperAntiSpyware and running it. And try running it and Norton (if you have it still installed or whatever new anti-virus you have installed) in Safe Mode.

How much memory do you have installed on the computer? Which OS? XP or Vista? How full is your hard drive? Does the hard drive access also spike or is it purely CPU usage? I ask because I am wondering if you are running out of physical memory and the system is forced into using virtual memory (i.e. the hard drive). The other thing to check is the IE cache. Have you emptied the IE cache recently? If not and the drive is getting full, then that might contribute to it. And just in general systems tend to do weird stuff when they get down to very low disk space.

Regards,

Scott

Adrian, MI

On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Thor Tandy wrote:

This is not structural,however, I have a weird computer problem that eludes resolution.

During a recent webcast I found that I kept losing internet connectivity. I blamed the webcaster and then Norton but that was not the case.

1) When I am in Outlook my CPU usage climbs to 65%+. It often peaks to 100% at which time it gags. Problem only exists when using Outlook and/or IExplorer.

2) When I go online, browsing etc it climbs to 30%+ but often not high at all.

3) FTP/data/download transfers not significantly high unless I move about the browser.

4) Problem slows my keystrokes and everything so I can't keep the email on. Even as I type now the usage is at 70% ...

Does anyone have insight into what is happening in Outlook and/or IExplorer to cause this? I blamed Norton because I don't have this problem on other machines I have that don't have Norton but I uninstalled Norton and the symptom persisted.

I am thinking of doing a re-build ... but I don't have the time at the moment for that.

Thanks

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

Re: IT question

Alexander Bausk wrote:
> Thor,
>
> a virus it is, some kind of a spyware. See for example:
> http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread79222.html
> http://www.liutilities.com/products/wintaskspro/processlibrary/iexplorer/
>
> There are different spyware and trojan codes that mimick the iexplore process.
>
> I suggest downloading a free antivirus scanner like DrWeb CureIt:
> http://www.freedrweb.com/cureit/
> And scanning your system repeatedly.
>
> For those with svchost.exe, it is infected, too. I don't remember what
> kind of virus it is (looks like Kido/Conficker) but you should get rid
> of it. It usually comes on flash drives or via local network. It is
> able to use your computer as a zombie to attack servers via the
> internet.
> The Kido pandemic is a current nightmare:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker
>
> If it is a home PC, I'd simply reformat the HDD and reinstall the OS
> if I were you.
> The mentioned utility can clean up your hard drive but some of these
> viruses irreversibly corrupt the system registry (unless you have a PC
> geek friend handy to repair it).
>
> Regards, Alex.
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:13 AM, <jrgrill@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> I had pretty similar experience today. IE was locking up on a regular basis.
>> I received an error message concerning problems with Adobe Flash. Iwent to
>> Adobe website and uninstalled then reinstalled a newer version of Flash per
>> their instructions. I then talked to IT with my internet provider who had me
>> do what Thor suggested, sort of. Went to IE Tools/Options/Advanced then
>> "Reset". I lost some ad ons, but not "Favorites". Seems to be fine now. IE
>> was locking up for some time before I got the message about Flash. I did
>> reinstall Flash before the reset so I can't say if Flash was involved or
>> not.
>> Joe Grill
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: "Thor Tandy"
>> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:36:24 -0800
>> To: <seaint@seaint.org>
>> Subject: RE: IT question
>>
>> Thank you. I'll give it a whirl later tonight.
>>
>> Thor
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yi Yang [mailto:YI@summit-sr.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 4:29 PM
>> To: seaint@seaint.org
>> Subject: RE: IT question
>>
>> Thor,
>>
>> A few things you can try.
>>
>> 1. Disable Add-Ons in IE. (Tools --> Manage Add-ons).
>> 2. If you are using Word for email editor, try to disable that. (Tools ->
>> Options --> Mail Format)
>> 3. Start Outlook in safe mode, see if you experience the same problem.
>> (Start --> Run --> "outlook / safe", or hold down the Ctrl key while you
>> start Outlook).
>>
>> If the safe mode solves the problem, while you are in safe mode, go
>> to"Help", "About", and click on "Disabled Items", and hopefully that will
>> help you to narrow down the suspects.
>>
>> If all these don't work, you can try to run "Hijackthis" from Trend Micro,
>> while you have IE and Outlook running. You should be able find some
>> resources online to help you deciphering the log.
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>> YI YANG, S.E.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Thor Tandy [mailto:vicpeng@telus.net]
>> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:15 PM
>> To: SEAINT
>> Subject: IT question
>>
>> This is not structural,however, I have a weird computer problem that eludes
>> resolution.
>>
>> During a recent webcast I found that I kept losing internet connectivity. I
>> blamed the webcaster and then Norton but that was not the case.
>>
>> 1) When I am in Outlook my CPU usage climbs to 65%+. It often peaks to
>> 100% at which time it gags. Problem only exists when using Outlook and/or
>> IExplorer.
>>
>> 2) When I go online, browsing etc it climbs to 30%+ but often not high at
>> all.
>>
>> 3) FTP/data/download transfers not significantly high unless I move about
>> the browser.
>>
>> 4) Problem slows my keystrokes and everything so I can't keep the email
>> on. Even as I type now the usage is at 70% ...
>>
>> Does anyone have insight into what is happening in Outlook and/or IExplorer
>> to cause this? I blamed Norton because I don't have this problem on other
>> machines I have that don't have Norton but I uninstalled Norton and the
>> symptom persisted.
>>
>> I am thinking of doing a re-build ... but I don't have the time at the
>> moment for that.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, C.Eng, Struct.Eng, MIStructE
>> Victoria, BC
>> Canada
>>
>
>
>
>