Structural Engineering: 2009-05-24

Saturday, May 30, 2009

RE: Enercalc 6-2D Frame Analysis question

If you are using the various load combinations, try removing all the
combinations, then apply one horizontal load at one of the joints then run
the analysis. I have had problems with load combinations & naming
conventions before, but it is usually human error.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nguyen, Phuong [mailto:PNguyen@portla.org]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 7:08 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Enercalc 6-2D Frame Analysis question

List,
I using the 2-D Frame Analysis of Enercalc 6.22 to analyze and design a
portal frame. One bay 20', 10' high. Input done, when "Recalc is complete" I
click Member Check Results-->Stress Check Resuts, it shows "No stress", but
the status is "PASS". The steel Details tab shows nothing. Member Forces was
calculated and results show on Member Forces tab. I check the help line to
go to a instructional video for the fast frame but it was removed. I wonder
if any of you have experienced this hiccup and how you solve it. Appreciate
very much.
Phuong Nguyen

-----------------------------------Confidentiality
Notice--------------------------------------------------
This electronic message transmission contains information from the Port of
Los Angeles, which may be confidential. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete
the original message and any attachment without reading or saving in any
manner.

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

Enercalc 6-2D Frame Analysis question

List,
I using the 2-D Frame Analysis of Enercalc 6.22 to analyze and design a portal frame. One bay 20', 10' high. Input done, when "Recalc is complete" I click Member Check Results-->Stress Check Resuts, it shows "No stress", but the status is "PASS". The steel Details tab shows nothing. Member Forces was calculated and results show on Member Forces tab. I check the help line to go to a instructional video for the fast frame but it was removed. I wonder if any of you have experienced this hiccup and how you solve it. Appreciate very much.
Phuong Nguyen

-----------------------------------Confidentiality Notice--------------------------------------------------
This electronic message transmission contains information from the Port of Los Angeles, which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message and any attachment without reading or saving in any manner.

Friday, May 29, 2009

RE: Non-composite floor deck

http://www.metaldeck.com/78_corrugated.htm is this maybe what you are looking for?

-Michelle

From: Drew Morris [mailto:dmorris@bbfm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 3:04 PM
To: SEAINT
Subject: Non-composite floor deck

I have a case where we are trying to determine the floor capacity for a non-composite floor deck. It is a corrugated (sine curve curve profile) with ribs 2 1/2" apart and a height of 7/8". There is 3" of concrete fill. I am working up the section modulus, but am trying to see if there are tables out there.

Non-composite floor deck

re: shear tabs

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Andrew Kester;PE
FN:Andrew Kester, PE
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:akester@cfl.rr.com
REV:20090529T183902Z
END:VCARD

Vish,

I think the only one doing calcs for shear tabs are college kids and steel design programs. Why bother reinventing the wheel when AISC has the tables, and the background to explain where it all comes from including testing in a lab. You are doing exactly what we and any other engineer I know always does in that situation whether in-house on our own drawings or as a specialty engineer.

I would cite that section of AISC, he will look ridiculous if he disagrees with that unless this is for work in another country or something. Check the AISC Code of Standard Practice, looking at the "silver book" it is on 6-463, and emphatically states this is allowed and that the EOR shall supply the fabricator/specialty engineer with the reactions.

Recently when confronted with an EOR asking for moment connections based on full capacity of the beam, we were trying to develop full moments of large WF into much smaller WF columns. This made no sense at all and I threw up the red flag and asked for the actual moments. They responded with a generic moment for all the connections which was like 1/5 of the moment capacity of the beams, so it was a significant savings to our client (the fabricator).

Finally, this engineer should be embarrased by his laziness. The effort to delegate simple shear connections and go back and forth with you on the shop drawings is greater than showing it on your own plans, and it is too bad more clients are not savvy enough to hold their hand to the fire as they are passing on the cost the fabricator/GC and saving their own fee, albeit, a very small amount of time.... Every set of drawings I have ever seen has standard shear connection tables right out of AISC, we even cite where this on our drawings.

Good luck, but you will easily win this one...

Andrew Kester, P.E.

Re: Pt slab, opening

To answer that one, you get to charge your client money for engineering services....

-gm

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:39 AM, <erik_g@cox.net> wrote:

We are doing a remodel where the existing slab on grade is post tensioned and the contractor wants to cut out a 12" to 14" wide strip of slab running parallel with the tendons, w/out cutting the tendons. They had the slab x-rayed and they know the location of all the tendons. They need to run some plumbing from an existing wall to the new addition.

My question is, will this 12" to 14" wide by approx 10ft long opening in an existing pt slab compromise the structural integrity of the slab?

This opening will be located next to an existing ftg along the short side of the slab which is a rectangle approx 12' x 31' .

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

Pt slab, opening

We are doing a remodel where the existing slab on grade is post tensioned and the contractor wants to cut out a 12" to 14" wide strip of slab running parallel with the tendons, w/out cutting the tendons. They had the slab x-rayed and they know the location of all the tendons. They need to run some plumbing from an existing wall to the new addition.

My question is, will this 12" to 14" wide by approx 10ft long opening in an existing pt slab compromise the structural integrity of the slab?

This opening will be located next to an existing ftg along the short side of the slab which is a rectangle approx 12' x 31' .

RE: Simple Shear tab connection

You don’t mention checking the web thickness of the beam. You need to make sure that it’s not critical. Also, although it probably doesn’t apply in a beam to column flange connection, block shear or plate bending in the beam web may be critical if one or both beam flanges are coped. –j

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: G Vishwanath [mailto:gvshwnth@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:41 AM
To: steel steel; seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Simple Shear tab connection

List,

I seek advice and opinions from connection experts.

We have simple routine detailing job with various types of connections.

One set of connections consists of beams connected to the flange of the column with a simple shear tab.

Since calcs were included in scope, as is my customary practice (which I followed for so many years without any issues from the approving engineer), I made a calculation summary and presented a table showing:

1)Beam location
2)Beam size
3)Beam span
4)Beam 1/2 udl capacity per Aisc manual.
4)Shear tab thickness (3/8" mostly even if 1/4" or 5/16" was enough per Aisc)
6)Number of bolts in single shear connecting the beam web to the shear tab (usually numbers required for a full depth connection)
7)Bolt dia (3/4, 7/8 or 1")
8)Bolt specn (A325N or A490N)
9)Fillet weld size (for weld connecting shear tab to the column flange)
10)The reaction considered for the connection (either 1/2 udl or the supplied value)
11)The connection capacity per Table 10-9A of Aisc 13th Edition.

The table showed that the capacities under 11) above were always more than the reaction considered under 10)

The approver has remarked that I need to show calcs for bolt bearing on the plate, shear yielding of the plate, shear rupture of the plate, block shear and weld shear and is refusing to review the dwgs until this is done.

I am taking the stand that the Aisc table 10-9a considers all the above while listing the connection strength and that no calcs are needed for the above since I have adopted the plate thickness and weld size also from the same table 10-9a

Am I right?

The engineer has marked up some of my reaction values as he is not okay with half udl reactions.
I am taking care of the revised reaction values and revising the details where necessary but am not willing to submit any further calcs.

Will the savants on this list and also some one from Aisc back me up on this ? I am going to quote the last paragraph on Page 10-04 of the thirteenth edition in support of my stand.

Regards
Vish

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Typo correction in mail on Single shear tab connection.

In the last para, I wrongly typed page 10-04.

It should be page 10-104.

Thanks to Cap'n Ron for pointing this out in a private mail to me.

Regards

Vish

Re: Simple Shear tab connection

There is a steel tips tips that is very good on single plate shear tabs by Astaneh and McMullin at www.steeltips.org which is what AISC based their methods upon.

-gm

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Scott A. Dunham, PE <sadunham@graceba.net> wrote:

Vish -

I think you meant to reference the next to the last paragraph on page 10-104 which clearly states that all of the noted limit states are considered in arriving at the tabulated values. I agree with you that the approver is being unreasonable.

Scott A. Dunham, PE
Dunham Engineering Services
Dothan, AL
334-678-6948

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

From: G Vishwanath

To: steel steel ; seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:41 AM

Subject: Simple Shear tab connection

List,

I seek advice and opinions from connection experts.

We have simple routine detailing job with various types of connections.

One set of connections consists of beams connected to the flange of the column with a simple shear tab.

Since calcs were included in scope, as is my customary practice (which I followed for so many years without any issues from the approving engineer), I made a calculation summary and presented a table showing:

1)Beam location
2)Beam size
3)Beam span
4)Beam 1/2 udl capacity per Aisc manual.
4)Shear tab thickness (3/8" mostly even if 1/4" or 5/16" was enough per Aisc)
6)Number of bolts in single shear connecting the beam web to the shear tab (usually numbers required for a full depth connection)
7)Bolt dia (3/4, 7/8 or 1")
8)Bolt specn (A325N or A490N)
9)Fillet weld size (for weld connecting shear tab to the column flange)
10)The reaction considered for the connection (either 1/2 udl or the supplied value)
11)The connection capacity per Table 10-9A of Aisc 13th Edition.

The table showed that the capacities under 11) above were always more than the reaction considered under 10)

The approver has remarked that I need to show calcs for bolt bearing on the plate, shear yielding of the plate, shear rupture of the plate, block shear and weld shear and is refusing to review the dwgs until this is done.

I am taking the stand that the Aisc table 10-9a considers all the above while listing the connection strength and that no calcs are needed for the above since I have adopted the plate thickness and weld size also from the same table 10-9a

Am I right?

The engineer has marked up some of my reaction values as he is not okay with half udl reactions.
I am taking care of the revised reaction values and revising the details where necessary but am not willing to submit any further calcs.

Will the savants on this list and also some one from Aisc back me up on this ? I am going to quote the last paragraph on Page 10-04 of the thirteenth edition in support of my stand.

Regards
Vish

Re: Simple Shear tab connection

Vish -

I think you meant to reference the next to the last paragraph on page 10-104 which clearly states that all of the noted limit states are considered in arriving at the tabulated values. I agree with you that the approver is being unreasonable.

Scott A. Dunham, PE
Dunham Engineering Services
Dothan, AL
334-678-6948

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

From: G Vishwanath

To: steel steel ; seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:41 AM

Subject: Simple Shear tab connection

List,

I seek advice and opinions from connection experts.

We have simple routine detailing job with various types of connections.

One set of connections consists of beams connected to the flange of the column with a simple shear tab.

Since calcs were included in scope, as is my customary practice (which I followed for so many years without any issues from the approving engineer), I made a calculation summary and presented a table showing:

1)Beam location
2)Beam size
3)Beam span
4)Beam 1/2 udl capacity per Aisc manual.
4)Shear tab thickness (3/8" mostly even if 1/4" or 5/16" was enough per Aisc)
6)Number of bolts in single shear connecting the beam web to the shear tab (usually numbers required for a full depth connection)
7)Bolt dia (3/4, 7/8 or 1")
8)Bolt specn (A325N or A490N)
9)Fillet weld size (for weld connecting shear tab to the column flange)
10)The reaction considered for the connection (either 1/2 udl or the supplied value)
11)The connection capacity per Table 10-9A of Aisc 13th Edition.

The table showed that the capacities under 11) above were always more than the reaction considered under 10)

The approver has remarked that I need to show calcs for bolt bearing on the plate, shear yielding of the plate, shear rupture of the plate, block shear and weld shear and is refusing to review the dwgs until this is done.

I am taking the stand that the Aisc table 10-9a considers all the above while listing the connection strength and that no calcs are needed for the above since I have adopted the plate thickness and weld size also from the same table 10-9a

Am I right?

The engineer has marked up some of my reaction values as he is not okay with half udl reactions.
I am taking care of the revised reaction values and revising the details where necessary but am not willing to submit any further calcs.

Will the savants on this list and also some one from Aisc back me up on this ? I am going to quote the last paragraph on Page 10-04 of the thirteenth edition in support of my stand.

Regards
Vish

Re: Simple Shear tab connection

Vish,

I suggest that you ask your question to the AISC Solutions center. An answer from them should carry some weight.

Do you mean page 10-104, and I suggest the whole last section (the last three paragraphs).

I believe your procedure is correct.

Regards
Mark Johnson PE

--- On Thu, 5/28/09, G Vishwanath <gvshwnth@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: G Vishwanath <gvshwnth@yahoo.com>
Subject: Simple Shear tab connection
To: "steel steel" <steel-detail@yahoogroups.com>, seaint@seaint.org
Date: Thursday, May 28, 2009, 8:41 AM

List,

I seek advice and opinions from connection experts.

We have simple routine detailing job with various types of connections.

One set of connections consists of beams connected to the flange of the column with a simple shear tab.

Since calcs were included in scope, as is my customary practice (which I followed for so many years without any issues from the approving engineer), I made a calculation summary and presented a table showing:

1)Beam location
2)Beam size
3)Beam span
4)Beam 1/2 udl capacity per Aisc manual.
4)Shear tab thickness (3/8" mostly even if 1/4" or 5/16" was enough per Aisc)
6)Number of bolts in single shear connecting the beam web to the shear tab (usually numbers required for a full depth connection)
7)Bolt dia (3/4, 7/8 or 1")
8)Bolt specn (A325N or A490N)
9)Fillet weld size (for weld connecting shear tab to the column flange)
10)The reaction considered for the connection (either 1/2 udl or the supplied value)
11)The connection capacity per Table 10-9A of Aisc 13th Edition.

The table showed that the capacities under 11) above were always more than the reaction considered under 10)

The approver has remarked that I need to show calcs for bolt bearing on the plate, shear yielding of the plate, shear rupture of the plate, block shear and weld shear and is refusing to review the dwgs until this is done.

I am taking the stand that the Aisc table 10-9a considers all the above while listing the connection strength and that no calcs are needed for the above since I have adopted the plate thickness and weld size also from the same table 10-9a

Am I right?

The engineer has marked up some of my reaction values as he is not okay with half udl reactions.
I am taking care of the revised reaction values and revising the details where necessary but am not willing to submit any further calcs.

Will the savants on this list and also some one from Aisc back me up on this ? I am going to quote the last paragraph on Page 10-04 of the thirteenth edition in support of my stand.

Regards
Vish

Simple Shear tab connection

List,

I seek advice and opinions from connection experts.

We have simple routine detailing job with various types of connections.

One set of connections consists of beams connected to the flange of the column with a simple shear tab.

The table showed that the capacities under 11) above were always more than the reaction considered under 10)

Am I right?

Will the savants on this list and also some one from Aisc back me up on this ? I am going to quote the last paragraph on Page 10-04 of the thirteenth edition in support of my stand.

Regards
Vish

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

RE: 1995 California Building Code Table 16A-O

Give me a call at 805-6531743 and I will fax it to you.

Larry Hauer, S.E.

From: FSRahbar@aol.com
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 13:55:38 -0400
Subject: 1995 California Building Code Table 16A-O
To: seaint@seaint.org

List:

Does anyone has a copy of this Table? Ours has vanished!

Thank you,

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

We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.

Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Re: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

Have you tried Sketchup? There's a free plugin w/3D structural steel shapes.

http://sketchup.engineeringtoolbox.com/section-steel-to_2.html

Re: 1995 California Building Code Table 16A-O

Hi Farzin:

I already scanned the Table 16A-O of 1995 California Building Code and emailed it to you. it's high res. with about 7 MB size. please let me know if you can't receive it due to large size.

Regards

Khashayar "Casey" Hemmatyar, SE

California

Private email: khemmatyar(at)hotmail.com

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:55 AM, <FSRahbar@aol.com> wrote:

List:

Does anyone has a copy of this Table? Ours has vanished!

Thank you,

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

We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.

--
Regards
Casey (Khashayar) Hemmatyar
Private email <k@hemmatyar.com>
California

RE: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

Return Receipt

Your RE: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model
document:

was Tom.Hunt@fluor.com
received
by:

at: 05/26/2009 11:00:35 PDT

------------------------------------------------------------
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: High Mast Light Pole Design

Return Receipt

Your RE: High Mast Light Pole Design
document:

was Tom.Hunt@fluor.com
received
by:

at: 05/26/2009 10:56:18 PDT

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company.
------------------------------------------------------------

1995 California Building Code Table 16A-O

List:

Does anyone has a copy of this Table? Ours has vanished!

Thank you,

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

We found the real 'Hotel California' and the 'Seinfeld' diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com.

Re: Two Updates: Dallas Cowboys Roof Collapse

You better watch it... He may knock you out, given his criminal past and all...

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Bill Polhemus <bill@polhemus.cc> wrote:

Stan Caldwell wrote:

1] Ex-con structures consultant to Cowboys without college degree states, "In general, engineers do not excel in physics or mathematics."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052409dnprocollapse2.479828a.html

2] State of Texas and City of Irving dispute construction records retention.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/irving/stories/DN-irvdocuments_24met.ART0.Central.Edition1.50c04cb.html

I believe that you will find both article to be pretty interesting.

Regards,

Stan R, Caldwell, P.E., SECB

Plano, Texas

From the Dallas News article:

In his e-mail Saturday, [non-engineer] Galland said he was "interested in the science behind engineering. Engineering in itself is of little interest to me as it tends to simplify that which is not."

He stressed that the tentlike structures he analyzes are nonlinear, making his physics skills more useful than a "static engineering approach. In general, engineers do not excel in physics or mathematics."

<sarc>

Mr. Galland was also quoted as saying that "physicians don't excel in biology or anatomy, rocket scientists don't do well in fluid mechanics or ballistics, and lawyers are experts in EVERYTHING."

I mean, this just stands to reason

</sarc>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

Have you tried the FLATTEN command?

You can choose to hide the rear lines during the command, and it creates a 2d of exactly the view you’re currently in – even odd angled isometrics.

If you’re wanting an internal section, check out the tools in the Catalog; it has a section tool. And while what someone else had mentioned about being able to see through windows and whatnot is true, you can adjust the exact depth of the section view to un-include other items.

From: Mark Johnson [mailto:markajohn@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 10:54 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

Bill,

Alex has the right idea if you really want to use 3D (especially if you have a wire frame model). There is also the SECTION option of the SOLVIEW command if you have a solid model. However there is a learning curve in both cases.

If you don’t know the DVIEW command, you be way ahead just to copy part of the model (like the top floor and/or the one elevation) and separate it and work on that. You will need the ROTATE3D command and the UCS command among others.

If it’s simple, you should just redraw the plan and the elevation. You will avoid all the problems Conrad talked about.

--- On Mon, 5/25/09, Conrad Harrison <sch.tectonic@bigpond.com> wrote:

From: Conrad Harrison <sch.tectonic@bigpond.com>
Subject: RE: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model
To: seaint@seaint.org
Date: Monday, May 25, 2009, 6:55 PM

Bill,

Part of the problem is also that AutoCAD will display what is visible.

For example if architectural elevation has windows. Then will see through
the windows and the rear wall, which may include part of framing around
windows, doors, maybe even inside fittings: kitchen sink.

If simply have open framing then, there is nothing to hide/obscure the
framing in the background: it is visible. That conventionally we draw
symbolic stick diagrams of each wall: not what we can see, is another
matter. Symbolic abstraction of critical characteristics: more useful than
3D virtual models maybe?

The simplest way is to place elements on different layers, and switch off in
the paperspace viewports. Otherwise need two cutting planes, to remove the
visible framing behind, whilst viewing from the front.

With 3D packages like solidworks/edge I believe can simply pick the item and
switch off in the view (eg. hide cross-bracing rear wall so doesn't appear
to be blocking door opening in front wall). Revit probably the same.

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

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Bill Polhemus <bill@polhemus.cc> wrote:
> First of all, you'd think this would be among the simplest of things to do,
> but I declare to you that I've spent two hours searching the Autocad help
> files AND the web with no luck. Everything I find has to do with 3D SOLIDS
> modeling.
>
> I have a relatively simple 3D frame - just four columns connected by girders
> and some floor framing at the top of the "box." I just want to be able to
> show ONLY the plan, and ONLY one elevation view at a time, in a viewport.
>
> You'd think there'd be a simple "near and far clipping planes" setting that
> would allow you to do this, but I don't see it. As it is, you are obliged to
> show everything from a certain view.
>
> There's the "elevation" command. If you could give the elevation in a view,
> then tell it how far from the reference "elevation" below and above it, that
> would work, but again, I don't see it.
>
> Anybody?

Sectionplane command? From the Autocad 2010 help file...

"Creates a section object that acts as a cutting plane through 3D objects."

Monday, May 25, 2009

RE: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

Bill,

If you don't know the DVIEW command, you be way ahead just to copy part of the model (like the top floor and/or the one elevation) and separate it and work on that. You will need the ROTATE3D command and the UCS command among others.

If it's simple, you should just redraw the plan and the elevation. You will avoid all the problems Conrad talked about.

--- On Mon, 5/25/09, Conrad Harrison <sch.tectonic@bigpond.com> wrote:

From: Conrad Harrison <sch.tectonic@bigpond.com>
Subject: RE: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model
To: seaint@seaint.org
Date: Monday, May 25, 2009, 6:55 PM

Bill,

Part of the problem is also that AutoCAD will display what is visible.

For example if architectural elevation has windows. Then will see through
the windows and the rear wall, which may include part of framing around
windows, doors, maybe even inside fittings: kitchen sink.

If simply have open framing then, there is nothing to hide/obscure the
framing in the background: it is visible. That conventionally we draw
symbolic stick diagrams of each wall: not what we can see, is another
matter. Symbolic abstraction of critical characteristics: more useful than
3D virtual models maybe?

The simplest way is to place elements on different layers, and switch off in
the paperspace viewports. Otherwise need two cutting planes, to remove the
visible framing behind, whilst viewing from the front.

With 3D packages like solidworks/edge I believe can simply pick the item and
switch off in the view (eg. hide cross-bracing rear wall so doesn't appear
to be blocking door opening in front wall). Revit probably the same.

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

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

Bill,

Part of the problem is also that AutoCAD will display what is visible.

For example if architectural elevation has windows. Then will see through
the windows and the rear wall, which may include part of framing around
windows, doors, maybe even inside fittings: kitchen sink.

If simply have open framing then, there is nothing to hide/obscure the
framing in the background: it is visible. That conventionally we draw
symbolic stick diagrams of each wall: not what we can see, is another
matter. Symbolic abstraction of critical characteristics: more useful than
3D virtual models maybe?

The simplest way is to place elements on different layers, and switch off in
the paperspace viewports. Otherwise need two cutting planes, to remove the
visible framing behind, whilst viewing from the front.

With 3D packages like solidworks/edge I believe can simply pick the item and
switch off in the view (eg. hide cross-bracing rear wall so doesn't appear
to be blocking door opening in front wall). Revit probably the same.

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

RE: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

As I said, I don't honestly know if AutoCAD can do that or not...or if you
really must have something like Revit. I just don't use AutoCAD these
days...I just get to "crunch the numbers". But it would makes
sense...remember, just about any company's goal is to pry more cash out of
your wallet! <grin>

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill@polhemus.cc]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 5:05 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

Scott Maxwell wrote:
> Are you trying to do a section (i.e. cut through some items) or an
> elevation/plan (no "cutting" through anything)?
>
> I don't know if AutoCAD can do the former...I believe that is kind of
> why Revit exists. You should be able to do a viewport of the model
> and only show a "plan" or "elevation" view of the model, but you might
> need to "turn some stuff off" (i.e. put some things that you don't
> want shown on a layer and turn that layer off).
>
>
The first is what I'm trying to do, and it surprises me to hear that I'd
have to go through Revit. I'd think that was such a low-level function that
it would exist in Autocad for Revit's use, rather than the other way around.

Re: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

Scott Maxwell wrote:
> Are you trying to do a section (i.e. cut through some items) or an
> elevation/plan (no "cutting" through anything)?
>
> I don't know if AutoCAD can do the former...I believe that is kind of why
> Revit exists. You should be able to do a viewport of the model and only
> show a "plan" or "elevation" view of the model, but you might need to "turn
> some stuff off" (i.e. put some things that you don't want shown on a layer
> and turn that layer off).
>
>
The first is what I'm trying to do, and it surprises me to hear that I'd
have to go through Revit. I'd think that was such a low-level function
that it would exist in Autocad for Revit's use, rather than the other
way around.

Re: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

Alexander Bausk wrote:
> Bill,
> you could try and use DVIEW command. By default, it yields a
> perspective projection but that can be adjusted to show parallel. It
> has the [CLip] option that allows you to set up front and rear
> clipping planes.
>
> Regards,
> Alex.
>
>
I thought I might have to resort to something like this. That's actually
too bad.

Re: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

Bill,
you could try and use DVIEW command. By default, it yields a
perspective projection but that can be adjusted to show parallel. It
has the [CLip] option that allows you to set up front and rear
clipping planes.

Regards,
Alex.

--
Alexander Bausk
Civil/Structural design & inspection engineer
CAD professional
ONILAES Lab at PSACEA
Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine
Tel. +38 068 4079692
Fax. +38 0562 470263
bauskas@gmail.com

RE: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

Are you trying to do a section (i.e. cut through some items) or an
elevation/plan (no "cutting" through anything)?

I don't know if AutoCAD can do the former...I believe that is kind of why
Revit exists. You should be able to do a viewport of the model and only
show a "plan" or "elevation" view of the model, but you might need to "turn
some stuff off" (i.e. put some things that you don't want shown on a layer
and turn that layer off).

Don't know if that will help or not.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill@polhemus.cc]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 2:56 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

First of all, you'd think this would be among the simplest of things to do,
but I declare to you that I've spent two hours searching the Autocad help
files AND the web with no luck. Everything I find has to do with 3D SOLIDS
modeling.

I have a relatively simple 3D frame - just four columns connected by girders
and some floor framing at the top of the "box." I just want to be able to
show ONLY the plan, and ONLY one elevation view at a time, in a viewport.

You'd think there'd be a simple "near and far clipping planes" setting that
would allow you to do this, but I don't see it. As it is, you are obliged to
show everything from a certain view.

There's the "elevation" command. If you could give the elevation in a view,
then tell it how far from the reference "elevation" below and above it, that
would work, but again, I don't see it.

Anybody?

AUTOCAD: Extracting 2D Section from 3D Frame Model

First of all, you'd think this would be among the simplest of things to
do, but I declare to you that I've spent two hours searching the Autocad
help files AND the web with no luck. Everything I find has to do with 3D
SOLIDS modeling.

I have a relatively simple 3D frame - just four columns connected by
girders and some floor framing at the top of the "box." I just want to
be able to show ONLY the plan, and ONLY one elevation view at a time, in
a viewport.

You'd think there'd be a simple "near and far clipping planes" setting
that would allow you to do this, but I don't see it. As it is, you are
obliged to show everything from a certain view.

There's the "elevation" command. If you could give the elevation in a
view, then tell it how far from the reference "elevation" below and
above it, that would work, but again, I don't see it.

Anybody?

Re: High Mast Light Pole Design

Fellows,

There probably is/are solution(s) for this situation; and my experience with floor leveling toppings is that they do bond quite well for REINFORCED concrete floors. That said, why not see what the contractor can propose, particularly when he is under the threat of having to demo and replace the slab?

I think, for liability purposes, it would be better if the Contractor (or his engineer) were on record for proposing the fix even if it was you who put the idea in his head.

Regards,

H. Daryl Richardson

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

From: Richard Calvert

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 9:56 AM

Subject: RE: High Mast Light Pole Design

score, tap/epoxy dowels @ 24" o.c. staggered and use a bonding agent over the entire surface… then pour the rest of concrete and double up your control joint locations for insane amount of cracking that will still occur, and problem solved!

From: Michel Blangy [mailto:mblangy@satco-inc.com]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:30 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: High Mast Light Pole Design

Can't we just pour another layer on top...I don't see the problem.

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:09 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: High Mast Light Pole Design

Drew:

Elevated one-way P/T slab designed for 7" thickness. ACI 117 has a tolerance of -0.25 in. Measured thickness as constructed of 6.00" to 6.50", with parts of the slab as thin as 5.13". This is an area of about 3,000 sf in a parking structure on a tight schedule, where all surfaces will be visually exposed. A decision will be made manana.

Stan

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

The goal of every engineer is to retire

without getting blamed for a major

catastrophe! ...Dilbert

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

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Drew Morris <dmorris@bbfm.com> wrote:

So what happened at the jobsite?

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Re: Two Updates: Dallas Cowboys Roof Collapse

Stan Caldwell wrote:

1] Ex-con structures consultant to Cowboys without college degree states, "In general, engineers do not excel in physics or mathematics."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052409dnprocollapse2.479828a.html

2] State of Texas and City of Irving dispute construction records retention.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/irving/stories/DN-irvdocuments_24met.ART0.Central.Edition1.50c04cb.html

I believe that you will find both article to be pretty interesting.

Regards,

Stan R, Caldwell, P.E., SECB

Plano, Texas

From the Dallas News article:

In his e-mail Saturday, [non-engineer] Galland said he was "interested in the science behind engineering. Engineering in itself is of little interest to me as it tends to simplify that which is not."

He stressed that the tentlike structures he analyzes are nonlinear, making his physics skills more useful than a "static engineering approach. In general, engineers do not excel in physics or mathematics."

<sarc>

Mr. Galland was also quoted as saying that "physicians don't excel in biology or anatomy, rocket scientists don't do well in fluid mechanics or ballistics, and lawyers are experts in EVERYTHING."

I mean, this just stands to reason

</sarc>

Two Updates: Dallas Cowboys Roof Collapse

1] Ex-con structures consultant to Cowboys without college degree states, "In general, engineers do not excel in physics or mathematics."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052409dnprocollapse2.479828a.html

2] State of Texas and City of Irving dispute construction records retention.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/irving/stories/DN-irvdocuments_24met.ART0.Central.Edition1.50c04cb.html

I believe that you will find both article to be pretty interesting.

Regards,

Stan R, Caldwell, P.E., SECB

Plano, Texas

Re: Two Updates: Dallas Cowboys Roof Collapse

In a message dated 5/24/09 9:59:22 AM, stancaldwell@gmail.com writes:

1]

That's what I like - brief summaries! ;)

Ralph

**************
An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=MayExcfooterNO62)

Re: Two Updates: Dallas Cowboys Roof Collapse

Stan
Nothing was attached
Moustafa Gouda--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Caldwell <stancaldwell@gmail.com>
To: SEAINT Listserv <seaint@seaint.org>
Sent: Sun May 24 12:58:41 2009
Subject: Two Updates: Dallas Cowboys Roof Collapse

1]