Structural Engineering: 2009-03-22

Saturday, March 28, 2009

RE: Vertical joint in Matt (raft) foundation

I have become a big fan of StaForm. It provides a good solution for the contractor, and as the structural engineer, I like it because it maintains a roughened surface. It beats board forming and roughening the surface afterward.

Regards, Harold Sprague

From: John Nader [mailto:johnenader@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 8:46 AM
To: seaint
Subject: Vertical joint in Matt (raft) foundation

What is there to consider when placing vertical cold joints in a Matt foundation? I am placing the cold joint in between two columns, providing a continuous keyway and keeping the surface rough.

Thanks in advance for any input,

John

What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out

Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Find out more.

California SE question: Essential facilities

List members:

A client of mine is looking at doing at large hospital project in California.

A questione cam up regarding the seismic design of the building.

What he was told is that for "essential facilities" even though permit and
approval has been granted, the State Hospital Board can come back at any
time, review the structural design and direct the owner and SEOR to
upgrade the seismic design even during construction.

Question: Is this true and if so, is it possible to submit to this board
in advance and get their approval early so that if true, this retro
situation cannot occur?

DLF

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

Casey H.

please email or phone me regarding our JV....thanks.

dlf

Jv opportunity

Casey H:

Please call me 312.622.0409

Thanks.

David L. Fisher

Friday, March 27, 2009

AIr vent distance in Post tensioning duct

Dear All,

I would ike to know what is the international practise (Criteria) to provide the air vent in post tensioning duct.

Regards,
Nitin Nagar

RE: Vertical joint in Matt (raft) foundation

John,

The joint should be between L/2 to L/4. L/2 would be ideal. There should be no rebar splices at the joint if possible.

Alex

From: John Nader [mailto:johnenader@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 8:46 AM
To: seaint
Subject: Vertical joint in Matt (raft) foundation

What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out

RE: Minimum Reinforcing in CMU

If you are subject to the MJSC (masonry code), then it will kind of depend on which method you use for calcing the wall out...ASD or Strength. For Strength design, while not a "direct" minimum reinforcement, section 3.3.4.2.2.2 (2005 MSJC) is effectively a minimum reinforcement level. There is no equivalent in the ASD chapter from what I recall (at least in the 2005 edition).

Otherwise, it would only be if the IBC modified it with something (I still have not gotten around to getting a 2006 IBC) or if you fell under prescriptive requirements of the seismic stuff.

Regards,

Scott

Adrian, MI

From: Joseph R. Grill [mailto:jrgrill@cableone.net]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:44 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Minimum Reinforcing in CMU

I am doing a deep basement wall for a residence in a SDC C. It appears that the minimum reinforcing of .0020 with .0007 minimum only comes into play when you are in an SDC D. The basement is a bit much for an 8” CMU wall and the next size in this area that is used is 12” CMU. I only need #5’s at 24” o.c. in the 12” CMU which is a little less that the .0013 that would be required for the principle reinforcing. I’m pretty sure I’m o.k. since I am not in an SDC D and in addition I don’t even need to consider seismic for a residence in an SDC C. Am I missing anything?

Thanks,

Joe Grill

Joseph R. Grill, PE

email: VVEng@cableone.net

Minimum Reinforcing in CMU

Thanks,

Joe Grill

Joseph R. Grill, PE

email: VVEng@cableone.net

Re: joist seats

Good stuff, Andrew. Thanks for forwarding.

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Andrew Kester <akester@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

A Vulcraft engineer saw our post on seaint and provided this valuable info:

I stumbled onto this blog while researching other things, and liked your answer and the interest of others in getting the details right. The catalog bearing depths are minimums in order to clear the top chord angles and also to get the room to get a good joint intersection over the steel bearing surface without interference with the 1st tension web. If making the bearing depth equal depth on both ends is simpler, please show it that way on the details, and show the location where this depth occurs. Otherwise, show what works best.

Similarly for joists sloped < 3/8" / 12", the standard depths of 2½" and 5" should be used unless going deeper is necessary due to the situation.
Regarding 8" and 10" joists, please try to refrain from using 8K1 joists. These joists are expensive to make and are not shown in the economical guide of the Vulcraft catalog. 8K1's will not be included in the next version of the SJI catalog. 10K1 are commonly used and often the minimum for fire ratings.
I tried, but was unsuccessful at responding to the blog directly. I guess I should ask my son for help. If you think this information is of value, please forward it to the others I saw in the blog.

Thanks, Dave Henley, PE (A Vulcraft engineer)

--
David Topete, SE

re: joist seats

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Andrew Kester;PE
FN:Andrew Kester, PE
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:akester@cfl.rr.com
REV:20090327T180613Z
END:VCARD

A Vulcraft engineer saw our post on seaint and provided this valuable info:

I stumbled onto this blog while researching other things, and liked your answer and the interest of others in getting the details right. The catalog bearing depths are minimums in order to clear the top chord angles and also to get the room to get a good joint intersection over the steel bearing surface without interference with the 1st tension web. If making the bearing depth equal depth on both ends is simpler, please show it that way on the details, and show the location where this depth occurs. Otherwise, show what works best.

Similarly for joists sloped < 3/8" / 12", the standard depths of 2½" and 5" should be used unless going deeper is necessary due to the situation.

Regarding 8" and 10" joists, please try to refrain from using 8K1 joists. These joists are expensive to make and are not shown in the economical guide of the Vulcraft catalog. 8K1's will not be included in the next version of the SJI catalog. 10K1 are commonly used and often the minimum for fire ratings.

I tried, but was unsuccessful at responding to the blog directly. I guess I should ask my son for help. If you think this information is of value, please forward it to the others I saw in the blog.

Thanks, Dave Henley, PE (A Vulcraft engineer)

Vertical joint in Matt (raft) foundation

What can you do with the new Windows Live? Find out

RE: Steel Joist Seat Height

In this area, there are a number of joist manufacturers and to make matter worse, their catalogs do not show the same joist seat depths for some slopes. We’ve done the following:

1. We call out the Bottom of Deck [BOD] rather than the Top of Steel.

2. We supply our best guess dimension from the top of the beam or joist girder to the BOD with the note to verify the joist depth with the joist supplier. This will almost always generate an RFI even though the joist supplier is a sub to the steel fabricator.

3. If we have masonry bearing, we require that all seats, all ends are the same dimension. (We generally have masons that if they get the plate in the right wall, that’s close enough.)

John L. Smart, PE SE

Lindsey & Ritter, Inc.

401 East Jane Street

Valdosta, GA 31601-4062

229.242.9897 Voice

229.242.5997 Facsimile

From: Paul Blomberg [mailto:paul.blomberg@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:17 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Steel Joist Seat Height

I'm assuming that the the seats depths will be the same at both ends, in this case 7". Is this correct?

Paul.

Re: Steel Joist Seat Height

Reminds me of a Golf Club in St Catharines where the roof collapsed just
before Christmas due to a heavy snow load. Turned out that the joists
had just been tack welded and shipped. It stood up for 20 years before
it collapsed. There was nothing wrong with the joist design but the
engineer for the repair heavied everything up anyway.
Gary

Rhkratzse@aol.com wrote:
> And *nobody* noticed that for "a few years" ???
>
> Reminds me of an instance many years ago where an electrician
> installed a box in a 12" square CIP concrete column form. Problem
> was, the box was 8" square and he cut all the vertical rebars to get
> it in. Duh!
>
> Ralph
>
> In a message dated 3/26/09 10:33:04 AM, d.topete73@gmail.com writes:
>> nice... and, engineers seem to have all the responsibility and
>> liability...
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Drew Morris <dmorris@bbfm.com
>> <mailto:dmorris@bbfm.com>> wrote:
>>
>> There was a case in Anchorage years ago where the diagonal web member
>> from the bottom chord to the joist seat interfered with the support
>> so the contractor cut the diagonal out. There was a partial roof
>> collapse a few years later.
>>
>>
>> Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. wrote:
>>
>>
>> List,
>> In this area (southern Ontario), all standard joists had 2.5" shoes
>> at one time, until people found too many joists had the diagonals
>> hitting the block wall or beam flange and there was a movement to
>> change the standard shoe depth to 4". There is still the odd
>> engineer out there dwelling in the past who still specs 2.5" shoes.
>> Now there is a push to use standard joist shoes of 5" depth.
>> Aside from that, does anybody specify 8" or 10" joists these days?
>> It seems the labour costs are too high, compared to using light hot
>> rolled WF beams or channels, or cold rolled members (some with web
>> holes).
>> Gary
>>
>> Haan, Scott M POA wrote:
>>
>> I've had Vulcraft engineers tell me they wanted the low end 5.5" tall for
>> sloped joists I am laying out now. Different than what is shown in the
>> catalog. They will give you what you spec. Call and ask what they can
>> provide.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Blomberg [mailto:paul.blomberg@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday,
>> March 25, 2009 7:17 AM
>> To: seaint@seaint.org <mailto:seaint@seaint.org>
>> Subject: Steel Joist Seat Height
>>
>> I need a sanity check on a 2:12 sloped LH joist seat height. As I'm not
>> really a joist guy I appreciate the help. The Vulcraft catalog has
>> the high
>> end joist seat depth at 7". But the low end seat depth is " 6" min.* ".
>>
>> I'm assuming that the the seats depths will be the same at both ends,
>> in this
>> case 7". Is this correct?
>> Paul.
>>
>
>
>
> **************
> Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make meals for Under $10.
> (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000002)

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Re: Steel Joist Seat Height

And *nobody* noticed that for "a few years" ???

Reminds me of an instance many years ago where an electrician installed a box in a 12" square CIP concrete column form. Problem was, the box was 8" square and he cut all the vertical rebars to get it in. Duh!

Ralph

In a message dated 3/26/09 10:33:04 AM, d.topete73@gmail.com writes:

nice... and, engineers seem to have all the responsibility and liability...

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Drew Morris <dmorris@bbfm.com> wrote:

There was a case in Anchorage years ago where the diagonal web member from the bottom chord to the joist seat interfered with the support so the contractor cut the diagonal out. There was a partial roof collapse a few years later.

Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. wrote:

List,
In this area (southern Ontario), all standard joists had 2.5" shoes at one time, until people found too many joists had the diagonals hitting the block wall or beam flange and there was a movement to change the standard shoe depth to 4". There is still the odd engineer out there dwelling in the past who still specs 2.5" shoes. Now there is a push to use standard joist shoes of 5" depth.
Aside from that, does anybody specify 8" or 10" joists these days? It seems the labour costs are too high, compared to using light hot rolled WF beams or channels, or cold rolled members (some with web holes).
Gary

Haan, Scott M POA wrote:

I've had Vulcraft engineers tell me they wanted the low end 5.5" tall for
sloped joists I am laying out now. Different than what is shown in the
catalog. They will give you what you spec. Call and ask what they can
provide.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Blomberg [mailto:paul.blomberg@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Steel Joist Seat Height

I need a sanity check on a 2:12 sloped LH joist seat height. As I'm not
really a joist guy I appreciate the help. The Vulcraft catalog has the high
end joist seat depth at 7". But the low end seat depth is " 6" min.* ".

I'm assuming that the the seats depths will be the same at both ends, in this
case 7". Is this correct?
Paul.

**************
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make meals for Under $10. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000002)

Re: Steel Joist Seat Height

nice... and, engineers seem to have all the responsibility and liability...

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Drew Morris <dmorris@bbfm.com> wrote:

There was a case in Anchorage years ago where the diagonal web member from the bottom chord to the joist seat interfered with the support so the contractor cut the diagonal out. There was a partial roof collapse a few years later.

Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. wrote:
List,
In this area (southern Ontario), all standard joists had 2.5" shoes at one time, until people found too many joists had the diagonals hitting the block wall or beam flange and there was a movement to change the standard shoe depth to 4". There is still the odd engineer out there dwelling in the past who still specs 2.5" shoes. Now there is a push to use standard joist shoes of 5" depth.
Aside from that, does anybody specify 8" or 10" joists these days? It seems the labour costs are too high, compared to using light hot rolled WF beams or channels, or cold rolled members (some with web holes).
Gary

Haan, Scott M POA wrote:

I've had Vulcraft engineers tell me they wanted the low end 5.5" tall for
sloped joists I am laying out now. Different than what is shown in the
catalog. They will give you what you spec. Call and ask what they can
provide.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Blomberg [mailto:paul.blomberg@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Steel Joist Seat Height

I need a sanity check on a 2:12 sloped LH joist seat height. As I'm not
really a joist guy I appreciate the help. The Vulcraft catalog has the high
end joist seat depth at 7". But the low end seat depth is " 6" min.* ".

I'm assuming that the the seats depths will be the same at both ends, in this
case 7". Is this correct?
Paul.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web *   site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web *   site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

--
David Topete, SE

Re: Steel Joist Seat Height

There was a case in Anchorage years ago where the diagonal web member from the bottom chord to the joist seat interfered with the support so the contractor cut the diagonal out. There was a partial roof collapse a few years later.

Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. wrote:

List,
In this area (southern Ontario), all standard joists had 2.5" shoes at one time, until people found too many joists had the diagonals hitting the block wall or beam flange and there was a movement to change the standard shoe depth to 4". There is still the odd engineer out there dwelling in the past who still specs 2.5" shoes. Now there is a push to use standard joist shoes of 5" depth.
Aside from that, does anybody specify 8" or 10" joists these days? It seems the labour costs are too high, compared to using light hot rolled WF beams or channels, or cold rolled members (some with web holes).
Gary

Haan, Scott M POA wrote:

I've had Vulcraft engineers tell me they wanted the low end 5.5" tall for
sloped joists I am laying out now. Different than what is shown in the
catalog. They will give you what you spec. Call and ask what they can
provide.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Blomberg [mailto:paul.blomberg@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Steel Joist Seat Height

I need a sanity check on a 2:12 sloped LH joist seat height. As I'm not
really a joist guy I appreciate the help. The Vulcraft catalog has the high
end joist seat depth at 7". But the low end seat depth is " 6" min.* ".

I'm assuming that the the seats depths will be the same at both ends, in this
case 7". Is this correct?
Paul.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web *   site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web *   site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: Steel Joist Seat Height

We will call out 8K1 and 10K1 joists where applicable either for roof or floor framing. From SJI, the K joists will have 2 1/2" seats and LH joists will have 5" seats. When the joists are not flat, then you have to look at the minimum seat depth so the joist will clear the edge of the CMU block wall or W beam flange edge.

Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. wrote:

List,
In this area (southern Ontario), all standard joists had 2.5" shoes at one time, until people found too many joists had the diagonals hitting the block wall or beam flange and there was a movement to change the standard shoe depth to 4". There is still the odd engineer out there dwelling in the past who still specs 2.5" shoes. Now there is a push to use standard joist shoes of 5" depth.
Aside from that, does anybody specify 8" or 10" joists these days? It seems the labour costs are too high, compared to using light hot rolled WF beams or channels, or cold rolled members (some with web holes).
Gary

Haan, Scott M POA wrote:

I've had Vulcraft engineers tell me they wanted the low end 5.5" tall for
sloped joists I am laying out now. Different than what is shown in the
catalog. They will give you what you spec. Call and ask what they can
provide.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Blomberg [mailto:paul.blomberg@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Steel Joist Seat Height

I need a sanity check on a 2:12 sloped LH joist seat height. As I'm not
really a joist guy I appreciate the help. The Vulcraft catalog has the high
end joist seat depth at 7". But the low end seat depth is " 6" min.* ".

I'm assuming that the the seats depths will be the same at both ends, in this
case 7". Is this correct?
Paul.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web *   site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web *   site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: joist seat height

Great information from everyone. This list is worth every penny it costs me!

Paul.

On 3/26/09, Andrew Kester <akester@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

Like others have said, they have minimium joist seats, but you can specify anything you want above that (maybe less also). There are all kinds of situations that dictate different heights, you may choose an odd number to match CMU coursing for example. Pay close attention to the minimium bearing length though, there is less flexibility in that. The best way to do it is in your detail show a working point and then give them a dimension, they will detail it accordingly.

HTH,

Andrew Kester, P.E.
Orlando, Florida

re: joist seat height

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Andrew Kester;PE
FN:Andrew Kester, PE
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:akester@cfl.rr.com
REV:20090326T124026Z
END:VCARD

Like others have said, they have minimium joist seats, but you can specify anything you want above that (maybe less also). There are all kinds of situations that dictate different heights, you may choose an odd number to match CMU coursing for example. Pay close attention to the minimium bearing length though, there is less flexibility in that. The best way to do it is in your detail show a working point and then give them a dimension, they will detail it accordingly.

HTH,

Andrew Kester, P.E.
Orlando, Florida

Re: Steel Joist Seat Height

List,
In this area (southern Ontario), all standard joists had 2.5" shoes at
one time, until people found too many joists had the diagonals hitting
the block wall or beam flange and there was a movement to change the
standard shoe depth to 4". There is still the odd engineer out there
dwelling in the past who still specs 2.5" shoes. Now there is a push to
use standard joist shoes of 5" depth.
Aside from that, does anybody specify 8" or 10" joists these days? It
seems the labour costs are too high, compared to using light hot rolled
WF beams or channels, or cold rolled members (some with web holes).
Gary

Haan, Scott M POA wrote:
> I've had Vulcraft engineers tell me they wanted the low end 5.5" tall for
> sloped joists I am laying out now. Different than what is shown in the
> catalog. They will give you what you spec. Call and ask what they can
> provide.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Blomberg [mailto:paul.blomberg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Steel Joist Seat Height
>
> I need a sanity check on a 2:12 sloped LH joist seat height. As I'm not
> really a joist guy I appreciate the help. The Vulcraft catalog has the high
> end joist seat depth at 7". But the low end seat depth is " 6" min.* ".
>
> I'm assuming that the the seats depths will be the same at both ends, in this
> case 7". Is this correct?
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Re: History of Seaint List

But...but I thought pop culture referencing WAS a legitimate hobby nowadays!

William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.

Via iPhone 3G

On Mar 24, 2009, at 7:50 PM, "Jordan Truesdell, PE" <seaint2@truesdellengineering.com> wrote:

Monty Python and Highlander in the same thread? Yikes, Bill, we need to find you another hobby.

;-)
Jordan
Bill Polhemus wrote:

Some of us are just restin'.

William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
Via iPhone 3G

On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Michael Hemstad <mhemstad@mbjeng.com> wrote:

Well, we're not dead, at least not all of us.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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: Steel Joist Seat Height

I've had Vulcraft engineers tell me they wanted the low end 5.5" tall for
sloped joists I am laying out now. Different than what is shown in the
catalog. They will give you what you spec. Call and ask what they can
provide.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Blomberg [mailto:paul.blomberg@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Steel Joist Seat Height

I need a sanity check on a 2:12 sloped LH joist seat height. As I'm not
really a joist guy I appreciate the help. The Vulcraft catalog has the high
end joist seat depth at 7". But the low end seat depth is " 6" min.* ".

I'm assuming that the the seats depths will be the same at both ends, in this
case 7". Is this correct?

Paul.

Re: history of the list

Fellow engineers,

There are also others whos postings I miss reading. These include Neil Moore, Nels Roselund, and Syed Faiz Ahmad. These guys used to be prolific AND they had good advice. Does anyone know how they are?

egards,

H. Daryl Richardson

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

From: Stuart, Matthew

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:58 AM

Subject: RE: history of the list

As far as I know Gail can still be reached at:

gskwy@aol.com

D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F.ASCE, SECB

Senior Project Manager

Structural Department

Associate

Engineers and Consultants - CMX

200 Route 9

Manalapan, NJ 07726

732-577-9000 (Ext. 308)

908-309-8657 (Cell)

732-298-9441 (Fax)

mstuart@CMXEngineering.com

From: Andrew Kester [mailto:akester@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:32 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: re: history of the list

I am surprised nobody had this list kicking via telegraph "back in the day":

"Dear Kind Sirs, I am currently contracted to design and construct a covered bridge over the Erie Canal. Must I consider a 4 ox load wagon, or will an 8 horse equivalent load suffice? Any more news on this Bessemer process? I hope they don't expect an old chap like myself to give up trusty sawn wood beams..." (beep beep, beep beep beep...)

I started my career in 1998 and found this list to be one of my most invaluable tools in my E.I. days. My boss was sharp but so busy with the business he was hardly ever there, so I often wanted a second opinion (or first). I was the only structural engineer in my office other than my boss so I felt on an island, and in a way, the listees were my coworkers, peers and mentors... The list taught me that all I needed was a push in the righ direction or the right reference and I could go figure it out on my own.

Scott, Dennis, Harold, Christopher, Nels, Stan, et al have helped me in inumberable ways. I have met people from this list, consulted with them privately, gotten business advice, obtained business and even a job offer. We all go through cycles and changes in our careers where we may not have the spare time to read every list, or post advice, but I think many of us try to read it most every day even if we cannot participate. And I have been entertained by Bill vs ________ throughout the years. Remember Gail from DC? What happened to her? She and Bill used to tangle on a regular basis...

Regards,

Andrew Kester, P.E.
Orlando, Florida

Re: Steel Joist Seat Height

Paul,

I don't know how this is done in U.S.A. but in Canada you could have any joist seat height you wanted. Each fabricator has his standards, of course; but all that means is the guys in the shop can fabricate it from memory using precut stock parts without having to follow a project specific drawing.

Regards,

H. Daryl Richardson

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

From: Paul Blomberg

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:16 AM

Subject: Steel Joist Seat Height

I need a sanity check on a 2:12 sloped LH joist seat height. As I'm not really a joist guy I appreciate the help. The Vulcraft catalog has the high end joist seat depth at 7". But the low end seat depth is " 6" min.* ".

I'm assuming that the the seats depths will be the same at both ends, in this case 7". Is this correct?

Paul.

Steel Joist Seat Height

I'm assuming that the the seats depths will be the same at both ends, in this case 7". Is this correct?

Paul.

RE: history of the list

As far as I know Gail can still be reached at:

gskwy@aol.com

D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F.ASCE, SECB

Senior Project Manager

Structural Department

Associate

Engineers and Consultants - CMX

200 Route 9

Manalapan, NJ 07726

732-577-9000 (Ext. 308)

908-309-8657 (Cell)

732-298-9441 (Fax)

mstuart@CMXEngineering.com

From: Andrew Kester [mailto:akester@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:32 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: re: history of the list

I am surprised nobody had this list kicking via telegraph "back in the day":

"Dear Kind Sirs, I am currently contracted to design and construct a covered bridge over the Erie Canal. Must I consider a 4 ox load wagon, or will an 8 horse equivalent load suffice? Any more news on this Bessemer process? I hope they don't expect an old chap like myself to give up trusty sawn wood beams..." (beep beep, beep beep beep...)

I started my career in 1998 and found this list to be one of my most invaluable tools in my E.I. days. My boss was sharp but so busy with the business he was hardly ever there, so I often wanted a second opinion (or first). I was the only structural engineer in my office other than my boss so I felt on an island, and in a way, the listees were my coworkers, peers and mentors... The list taught me that all I needed was a push in the righ direction or the right reference and I could go figure it out on my own.

Scott, Dennis, Harold, Christopher, Nels, Stan, et al have helped me in inumberable ways. I have met people from this list, consulted with them privately, gotten business advice, obtained business and even a job offer. We all go through cycles and changes in our careers where we may not have the spare time to read every list, or post advice, but I think many of us try to read it most every day even if we cannot participate. And I have been entertained by Bill vs ________ throughout the years. Remember Gail from DC? What happened to her? She and Bill used to tangle on a regular basis...

Regards,

Andrew Kester, P.E.
Orlando, Florida

re: history of the list

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Andrew Kester;PE
FN:Andrew Kester, PE
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:akester@cfl.rr.com
REV:20090325T133212Z
END:VCARD

I am surprised nobody had this list kicking via telegraph "back in the day":

Regards,

Andrew Kester, P.E.
Orlando, Florida

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

RE: History of Seaint List

Chris-
Be gentle with Stan. It was obviously a senior moment!
Regards,
Bill Cain, S.E.
Berkeley CA
Another old-timer

> From: chrisw@skypoint.com
> Subject: Re: History of Seaint List
> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:24:27 -0500
> To: seaint@seaint.org
>
>
> On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Stan Caldwell wrote:
>
> > Unless I am mistaken, the list got started in July 2005. It was
> > established by the Computer Applications Committee of SEAOSC.
> The archives go back to 1995.
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Internet Explorer 8 – Now Available. Faster, safer, easier. Download FREE now!

Re: History of Seaint List

Suresh:

This is an interesting link. Thanks for sharing. You voted yes. So did Ray Pixley and many others.

The List became SEAINT just after its third birthday, on July 12, 1998.

Regards,

Stan Caldwell

Plano, Texas

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Acharya, Suresh <Suresh.Acharya@ci.concord.ca.us> wrote:

Was not it renamed to SEAINT listserver later?

Related:

Back in early 1995, a bunch of naysayers voted NO to creation of 'sci.engr.civil.structural' newsgroup

See:

http://www.faqs.org/ftp/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/sci/sci.engr.civil.structural

-Suresh Acharya, S.E.

From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill@polhemus.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 4:28 PM
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Subject: Re: History of Seaint List

That jogged my memory. Someone posted an announcement on the old CIVIL-L listserv back in '95 advertising what was then called the SEAOSC list, I believe. Back in those days Usenet and listservs were the big deal (that WWW thing was just starting to take off).

CIVIL-L was run from the U. of New Brunswick as I recall.

William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
Via iPhone 3G

On Mar 24, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Stan Caldwell <stancaldwell@gmail.com> wrote:

Christopher:

Yes, I am guilty of a typo. I meant to write July 1995. To be more precise, July 6, 1995.

Sorry about that!

Stan

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Christopher Wright <chrisw@skypoint.com> wrote:

On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Stan Caldwell wrote:

Unless I am mistaken, the list got started in July 2005. It was established by the Computer Applications Committee of SEAOSC.

The archives go back to 1995.

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/

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: History of Seaint List

Monty Python and Highlander in the same thread? Yikes, Bill, we need to find you another hobby.

;-)

Jordan

Bill Polhemus wrote:

Some of us are just restin'.

William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
Via iPhone 3G

On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Michael Hemstad <mhemstad@mbjeng.com> wrote:

Well, we're not dead, at least not all of us.

RE: History of Seaint List

Was not it renamed to SEAINT listserver later?

Back in early 1995, a bunch of naysayers voted NO to creation of 'sci.engr.civil.structural' newsgroup

See:

http://www.faqs.org/ftp/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/sci/sci.engr.civil.structural

-Suresh Acharya, S.E.

From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill@polhemus.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 4:28 PM
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Subject: Re: History of Seaint List

That jogged my memory. Someone posted an announcement on the old CIVIL-L listserv back in '95 advertising what was then called the SEAOSC list, I believe. Back in those days Usenet and listservs were the big deal (that WWW thing was just starting to take off).

CIVIL-L was run from the U. of New Brunswick as I recall.

William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.

Via iPhone 3G

On Mar 24, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Stan Caldwell <stancaldwell@gmail.com> wrote:

Christopher:

Yes, I am guilty of a typo. I meant to write July 1995. To be more precise, July 6, 1995.

Sorry about that!

Stan

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Christopher Wright <chrisw@skypoint.com> wrote:

On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Stan Caldwell wrote:

Unless I am mistaken, the list got started in July 2005. It was established by the Computer Applications Committee of SEAOSC.
The archives go back to 1995.

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/

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: History of Seaint List

CIVIL-L was run from the U. of New Brunswick as I recall.

William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.

Via iPhone 3G

On Mar 24, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Stan Caldwell <stancaldwell@gmail.com> wrote:

Christopher:

Yes, I am guilty of a typo. I meant to write July 1995. To be more precise, July 6, 1995.

Sorry about that!

Stan

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Christopher Wright <chrisw@skypoint.com> wrote:

On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Stan Caldwell wrote:

Unless I am mistaken, the list got started in July 2005. It was established by the Computer Applications Committee of SEAOSC.

The archives go back to 1995.

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/

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: History of Seaint List

Some of us are just restin'.

William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.

Via iPhone 3G

On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Michael Hemstad <mhemstad@mbjeng.com> wrote:

Well, we're not dead, at least not all of us.

Re: History of Seaint List

The earliest recorded posting is somewhere near July 1995. 'Twas ye
olde SEAOC archive, ye tymes known as happye.

http://www.euken.com/group/seaoc/

Lots of archaeological stuff here:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://seaoc.org/

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

Re: History of Seaint List

Casey:

The first post was in July 1995. Check the archives.

Stan

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Casey K. Hemmatyar <khemmatyar@gmail.com> wrote:

Stan:

It goes way before 2005.
One of my first posts on SEAINT was back in 1998. Please see http://www.seaintarchive.org/group/seaoc/mailarchive/1998a/msg02237.html
Jim Warne, P. Eng. in B.C. was the first person who introduced this list-serve in the Structural Newsletter to me and Vancouver's (Canada) structural engineers back in 1998. I also remember Kris Hamilton S.E. in WA as one of the active contributors at the time.

Khashayar "Casey" Hemmatyar, SE
California

_______________________________________________________________________

From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:58 PM

To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: History of Seaint List

Jeremy:

Unless I am mistaken, the list got started in July 2005. It was established by the Computer Applications Committee of SEAOSC. That committee was chaired by Shafat Qazi, who can probably be considered as the father of the list. Some of the other active committee members were Dennis Wish and Bruce Bates. By September, Bill Polhemus, Dennis Wish, and Christopher Wright were all posting up a storm. I jumped in about six months later and Bill Allen joined shortly thereafter.

Where did we all go? Nowhere, we are still here. I post infrequently now because (1) I am very busy at the office, (2) I have only recently returned from three years of ASCE captivity, (3) I have been embarrassed when new clients have said that they knew me from the list before meeting me in person, and (4) I discovered that every one of my posts pops up whenever someone simply searches my name on Google. Notoriety is useful for politicians, but not for engineers.

What about the other pioneers? Sadly, some have passed away. Happily, others have found gainful employment or families to occupy their best hours. Undoubtedly, some have been turned off by too many off-topic posts and technical posts of no interest to them [for example, in my case, anything dealing with residential]. If there is a trend, it might be that most active participants today are sole-proprietors or members of very small firms, although that has probably always been true to some extent. One last thought, the list may have lost some of its novelty in this era of multi-function pocket electronics.

Regards,

Stan R. Caldwell, P.E., SECB
Richardson, Texas

**********************************************************
We've already had too much economic growth in the United States.
Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.
Actually, the problem in the world is that there are too many rich people.
…Paul Ehrlich, 1990
**********************************************************

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM, <jwhite@megr.com> wrote:
> I was looking at the archives recently and was curious what some of the
> first posts were and who posted them. It was interesting to see that a lot
> of the questions are very similar to those being asked presently. The only
> major difference is the code references are older. The other thing I
> noticed was that Bill Polhemus is one of the only people active from the
> very beginning of the list to present day. I wonder what happened to many
> of the others who used to participate and also if any of those who are still
> on the list know how the list got started?
>
> - Jeremy

Re: History of Seaint List

Christopher:

Yes, I am guilty of a typo. I meant to write July 1995. To be more precise, July 6, 1995.

Sorry about that!

Stan

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Christopher Wright <chrisw@skypoint.com> wrote:

On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Stan Caldwell wrote:

Unless I am mistaken, the list got started in July 2005. It was established by the Computer Applications Committee of SEAOSC.

The archives go back to 1995.

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/

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Frozen soil = disturbed earth?

Daryl:

Your post did not bore me! Instead, it brought back a flood of memories. I arrived at Prudhoe Bay, on the Arctic Coast of Alaska, in May 1971. As an ARCO engineer, I spent much of the next seven years working on design, construction, trouble-shooting, and research projects up there. Prudhoe Bay sits on about 2000 feet of unconsolidated permafrost that, if thawed, would be about like a Wendy's Frosty. All roads were five feet thick of gravel, which was necessary to equal the thermal properties of the few inches of native Tundra grass that were being covered up. All of our enclosed facilities were elevated several feet and supported on piles to keep the permafrost frozen. Initially, we used cast-in-place concrete slabs on timber piles. Eventually, we switched to huge modular units constructed in the Lower 48 and barged up to the site. The modules were always supported on steel pipe piles. Either way, the piles were installed in augered holes and then backfilled with a engineered sand/water slurry. The design criteria was adfreeze (think skin friction) with a big margin of safety to prevent/minimize long term creep. Frost heave uplift was also a consideration.

Prudhoe Bay has only two seasons: Frozen (long) and Mosquito (short). All off-road and off-pad work was done in the Frozen season, when temperatures regularly hovered around -60 Deg.F, excluding wind chill. The first thing you learn is not to drink much liquid at breakfast, because ARCO's standard Arctic trousers had metal zippers (use your imagination). Care was also necessary because some metals became brittle at those low temperatures. Also, during Frozen season, it is dark, pitch dark with not a glimpse of twilight, 24 hours a day. My most memorable project involved test driving and then pulling sheet piling at a gravel spit five miles offshore in the Arctic Ocean. I drove to the site every day in my pickup truck. The diesel hammer would not ignite on diesel or naptha, so I ended up ordering a plane load of ether (carburetor starter fluid). Day after day, another engineer and I would take turns climbing up the trestle and squirting ether into the hammer on every stroke. We successfully drove the piling and pulled it, demonstrating that it did not roll up (scroll) as had been predicted. That allowed ARCO to subsequently drive sheet piling around the perimeter of the gravel spit, fill it with gravel to create a drilling pad, and complete the first exploratory oil well in the Arctic Ocean.

Why was this memorable? There were two unforgettable mishaps. One evening, everyone left the site ahead of me and I drove back to the base camp all alone. About half way to shore, my truck slid into an open lead. There I was, all alone in the dark, with the water quickly refreezing all around me. Thanks to four-wheel drive and a Wisconsin upbringing, I survived and so did the truck. A few days later, while up on the pile driving rig for an extended period, I managed to freeze both feet. It turned out that ARCO had inadvertently issued me safety boots, with integral steel toes. Back at base camp, I explained to the medics that I had no feeling below my ankles and admitted that I had also frozen my feet once previously on an ill-fated high school ski trip. They promptly shipped me back to Dallas, where they told me that I could look forward to a double amputation. I went back to work on crutches and never went to a doctor. About three months later, my feet more-or-less returned to normal. It has been 36 years, and I still have the proper number of feet and toes.

Now then, I hope that I haven't bored you!

Regards,

Stan

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

If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart.

If you're not a conservative by the time you're 40,

you have no brain. ... anonymous

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