Structural Engineering: 2009-05-31

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Re: Heavy Timber Construction for Residential Use

The document does address in-plane shear capacity. A 2x6 deck with 2
nails per deck/joist intersection is usually good for about 50psf. Does
the current code still allow this for LFRS (it comes up occasionally in
decks)?
Chuck Utzman, P.E.

Alexander Bausk wrote:
> Matthew,
>
> http://www.awc.org/pdf/WCD4.pdf
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Stuart,
> Matthew<mStuart@cmxengineering.com> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have a copy of this American Wood Council document that you
>> could share with me?
>>
>>
>>
>> WCD 4 - Plank-And-Beam Framing for Residential Buildings
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Heavy Timber Construction for Residential Use

Matthew,

http://www.awc.org/pdf/WCD4.pdf

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Stuart,
Matthew<mStuart@cmxengineering.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have a copy of this American Wood Council document that you
> could share with me?
>
>
>
> WCD 4 - Plank-And-Beam Framing for Residential Buildings
>
>
>
> 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
>
>

--
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

Heavy Timber Construction for Residential Use

Does anyone have a copy of this American Wood Council document that you could share with me?

WCD 4 - Plank-And-Beam Framing for Residential Buildings

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

re Journalism Awards

re: posting nominations for television programs promoting engineering

Visit the following website for more information on Engineering Journalism Awards

http://www.keckfutures.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NAKFI_Communications_nominations_2_2_2009

http://www.keckfutures.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NAKFI_Communications_2008_Communication_Award_Winners_Finalists

http://www.aaes.org/communications/aaes_eng_journ_award.asp

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/honors/excel_journalism.cfm

Bob Johnson

PR for SEAOI ww.seaoi.org

contributor to www.eiass.com

and suggest website: http://www.engineerawards.com/

http://www.engineerawards.com/JourAWARDS.html

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

Friday, June 5, 2009

Re: Srength design Wind Load Factors

Larry,

The wind load factors changed when the directionality factor (Kd) was extracted from the constant in the basic wind pressure. i.e. 1.3/0.85 = 1.53 (approx. 1.6). See the commentary in ACI318-05 Section 9.2.1 for some more explanation.

I don't have a copy handy at the moment, but I'm sure it's also probably described in the commentary for ASCE7 somewhere, too. Theoretically, the only net increase is the difference between 1.53 and 1.6 when using the 1.6 load factor with ASCE7-05 wind loads.

Thanks,

Josh

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <lrhauer@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Subject: Srength design Wind Load Factors
To: SEAOC <seaint@seaint.org>

To All,

I am designing concrete anchorage for an antenna, (epoxied threaded rods into existing concrete. I noticed in the '06 CBC, Section 1605 that the wind design factor for strength design is 1.6W. I always thought it was 1.3W. Can anyone shead some light on this increase, or has it always been 1.6?

Thanks in advance.

Larry Hauer S.E.

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

Re: Engineering Award for Children's TV Program?

Tex Avery is great for kids to promote Architecture then... yeah.... what do you mean you can't engineer the building turn into a wolf's head and howl at pretty girls?

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 8:43 AM, David Topete <d.topete73@gmail.com> wrote:

I second the motion. Great show, though my daughter is a little too young still...

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Jordan Truesdell, PE <seaint2@truesdellengineering.com> wrote:

Anyone know of such a thing? If so, I'd like to nominate Phineas and Ferb as one of the best kids shows for promoting engineering.

--
Jordan

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

Srength design Wind Load Factors

To All,

I am designing concrete anchorage for an antenna, (epoxied threaded rods into existing concrete. I noticed in the '06 CBC, Section 1605 that the wind design factor for strength design is 1.6W. I always thought it was 1.3W. Can anyone shead some light on this increase, or has it always been 1.6?

Thanks in advance.

Larry Hauer S.E.

leave seaint

Re: Willamette StrucJoist capacity

Tom, Drew,

It would make me very nervous; but you might be able to load test them cheaper than you can replace all of them.

Regards,

H. Daryl Richardson

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

From: Tom Skaggs

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 11:34 AM

Subject: RE: Willamette StrucJoist capacity

Willamette Industries was purchased by Weyerhaeuser, your local iLevel representative may be able to answer your question.

http://www.ilevel.com/

FWIW, 6 year old I-joist "sitting outside partially covered" would make me nervous and all kinds of red flags would be raised. Of course, the definition of "partially covered" can vary significantly, so the joists may be perfectly suitable.

Tom

Thomas D. Skaggs, Ph.D., P.E.

Manager, Product Evaluation

APA

7011 S. 19th Street

Tacoma, WA 98466

253-620-7479 (office)

253-620-7235 (fax)

tom.skaggs@apawood.org

www.apawood.org

From: Drew Morris [mailto:dmorris@bbfm.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:07
To: SEAINT
Subject: Willamette StrucJoist capacity

Same post with additional info..

I have a rehab project in remote Alaska where we are considering on using some Willamette Struc Joists that are locally available (sitting outside partially covered for the last 6 years). They are 16" deep and the flanges are a "Microllam/Versalam" 2" wide by 1 3/8" deep. I need the allowable total and live loads for 28 foot and 30 foot spans. On the flanges there is a faded mark that reads "SJ-250W PFC57". The last few letters and numbers are hard to read.

Re: Willamette StrucJoist capacity

Your concerns are valid. The ends were exposed after the wrapping blew off over the las 6 years and have grayed and swelled over the years. The center portions of these joists are covered by another pallet and may still be usable. The joists onsite are 40 feet long, we only need 28 feet. We won't whether we can use these joists and any spacing until we see what they look like. They be usable, they be bonfire candidates.

Tom Skaggs wrote:

Willamette Industries was purchased by Weyerhaeuser, your local iLevel representative may be able to answer your question.

http://www.ilevel.com/

FWIW, 6 year old I-joist “sitting outside partially covered” would make me nervous and all kinds of red flags would be raised. Of course, the definition of “partially covered” can vary significantly, so the joists may be perfectly suitable.

Tom

Thomas D. Skaggs, Ph.D., P.E.

Manager, Product Evaluation

APA

7011 S. 19th Street

Tacoma, WA 98466

253-620-7479 (office)

253-620-7235 (fax)

tom.skaggs@apawood.org

www.apawood.org

From: Drew Morris [mailto:dmorris@bbfm.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:07
To: SEAINT
Subject: Willamette StrucJoist capacity

Same post with additional info..

I have a rehab project in remote Alaska where we are considering on using some Willamette Struc Joists that are locally available (sitting outside partially covered for the last 6 years). They are 16" deep and the flanges are a "Microllam/Versalam" 2" wide by 1 3/8" deep. I need the allowable total and live loads for 28 foot and 30 foot spans. On the flanges there is a faded mark that reads "SJ-250W PFC57". The last few letters and numbers are hard to read.

RE: Willamette StrucJoist capacity

Willamette Industries was purchased by Weyerhaeuser, your local iLevel representative may be able to answer your question.

http://www.ilevel.com/

FWIW, 6 year old I-joist “sitting outside partially covered” would make me nervous and all kinds of red flags would be raised. Of course, the definition of “partially covered” can vary significantly, so the joists may be perfectly suitable.

Tom

Thomas D. Skaggs, Ph.D., P.E.

Manager, Product Evaluation

APA

7011 S. 19th Street

Tacoma, WA 98466

253-620-7479 (office)

253-620-7235 (fax)

tom.skaggs@apawood.org

www.apawood.org

From: Drew Morris [mailto:dmorris@bbfm.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:07
To: SEAINT
Subject: Willamette StrucJoist capacity

Same post with additional info..

I have a rehab project in remote Alaska where we are considering on using some Willamette Struc Joists that are locally available (sitting outside partially covered for the last 6 years). They are 16" deep and the flanges are a "Microllam/Versalam" 2" wide by 1 3/8" deep. I need the allowable total and live loads for 28 foot and 30 foot spans. On the flanges there is a faded mark that reads "SJ-250W PFC57". The last few letters and numbers are hard to read.

Willamette StrucJoist capacity

Willamette Strucjoist capacitiy

I have a rehab project in remote Alaska where we are considering on using some Willamette I-joists that are locally available (sitting outside partially covered for the last 6 years). They are 16" deep and the flanges are a "Microllam/Versalam" 2" wide by 1 3/8" deep. I need the allowable total and live loads for 28 foot and 30 foot spans.

RE: Recommendation for Special CE Exam

When I took them a couple years ago, I found some of the various review books that ppi2pass.com offers to be useful.

For surveying, I used the "Surveying Principles for Civil Engineers" as well as their "120 Solved Surveying Problems" and "Civil Surveying Sample Exams". The first one was the main one that helped me...but I also used the other two to get an idea of what some problems might look like.

For seismic, I probably found their sample exam book and seismic problems book to be more useful than the "review"/"comprehensive" book, but all helped some. The real thing is to make sure you know the code...in particular, where things are in the code.

In general, the surveying was a lot easier than I thought it would be...the only reason I thought it might be tough was because I had not used any of my surveying class stuff since college. But, the surveying questions were generally more "trig" type questions along with some basic surveying type stuff (which the first book I mentioned really dealt with just fine).

I was way less worried about the seismic exam...especially after having dealt with the Struct II exams and WA Struct III exams I had dealt with. It is fairly basic seismic stuff. So, if you do seismic design on a daily basis, you likely should not have too much of an issue with it.

HTH,

Scott

Adrian, MI

From: Padmanabhan Rajendran [mailto:prajendran@ymail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:28 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Recommendation for Special CE Exam

List,

In order to get registered as a PE in California, I am required to take the Special CE examination. It covers topics in seismic design and civil surveys. My examination is scheduled in October 09. I would like to study one or two books which would cover all the subjects in the examination.

Please make recommendations. Thanks.

Rajendran

Re: Recommendation for Special CE Exam

Rajenndran,

here good referance

http://www.irvine-institute.org/

choose manuals and workbooks

good luck

Dave, P.E.

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

From: Brian S Bossley

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:16 AM

Subject: RE: Recommendation for Special CE Exam

Rajenndra –

I thought that the books that PPI sells were a good reference. I used the Surveying Principles, 120 Solved Surveying Problems, and Civil Surveying books and I thought the books were an accurate study guide for the test. I was weaker on surveying than I was on seismic, so I got all three.

As far as seismic is concerned, PPI also sells a very good basic book, Seismic Design of Building Structures, but I would also recommend Farzad Naem's Seismic Design Handbook.

Brian S Bossley, P.E.

7610 Olentangy River Rd

Columbus, OH 43235

(614) 847-1110 x 121 (ph)

(614) 847-1116 (fax)

From: Padmanabhan Rajendran [mailto:prajendran@ymail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:28 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Recommendation for Special CE Exam

List,

In order to get registered as a PE in California, I am required to take the Special CE examination. It covers topics in seismic design and civil surveys. My examination is scheduled in October 09. I would like to study one or two books which would cover all the subjects in the examination.

Please make recommendations. Thanks.

Rajendran

Re: Engineering Award for Children's TV Program?

I second the motion. Great show, though my daughter is a little too young still...

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Jordan Truesdell, PE <seaint2@truesdellengineering.com> wrote:

Anyone know of such a thing? If so, I'd like to nominate Phineas and Ferb as one of the best kids shows for promoting engineering.

--
Jordan

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Recommendation for Special CE Exam

Rajendran –

I thought that the books that PPI sells were a good reference. I used the Surveying Principles, 120 Solved Surveying Problems, and Civil Surveying books and I thought the books were an accurate study guide for the test. I was weaker on surveying than I was on seismic, so I got all three.

As far as seismic is concerned, PPI also sells a very good basic book, Seismic Design of Building Structures, but I would also recommend Farzad Naem’s Seismic Design Handbook.

Brian S Bossley, P.E.

7610 Olentangy River Rd

Columbus, OH 43235

(614) 847-1110 x 121 (ph)

(614) 847-1116 (fax)

From: Padmanabhan Rajendran [mailto:prajendran@ymail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:28 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Recommendation for Special CE Exam

RE: galvanized vs electroplate

It's worth noting the 2009 IBC (and 2009 IRC) do in fact differentiate (to some extent) between PPT and FRTW. The FRT manufacturers pushed for the split during the interim cycle and it carried through to the final codes.

Basically, for FRT in interior dry applications, you'll now be directed to the manufacturer recommendations. So if they say their standard coating (like the G90) or plain steel fastener is OK, you'll be good to go.

Also, the 2009 IBC will carry an exception for using plain steel fasteners with borates in interior dry applications.

On the electroplated versus HDG I'm not sure I have much advice. I know there has been substantial debate in the code arena among the various fastener manufacturers and coating reps on the quality of mechanical versus HD galvanizing, and attempts to allow more mechanical galvanizing have failed. I vaguely recall some discussion of electroplating somewhere along the line but I can't remember the context at the moment.

Gary

Gary J. Ehrlich, PE
Program Manager, Structural Codes & Standards
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
1201 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005
ph: 202-266-8545 or 800-368-5242 x8545
fax: 202-266-8369
gehrlich@nahb.com
Attend the 2010 International Builders' Show
January 19-22, 2010, Las Vegas, NV
www.buildersshow.com
www.builderbooks.com
www.housingeconomics.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Thor Matteson [mailto:thorm@sti.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:18 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: galvanized vs electroplate

I'm on digest mode, so forgive me if this has already been answered....

You probably are referring to IBC/CBC section 2304.9.5, which does not
discriminate between the many different kinds of chemicals used for
preservative or fire-retardant treating.

Don'tcha love the building code? Some treating chemicals (borates) are
almost completely benign, and some others (ACQ, ACZA) will eat through
foundation bolts in a matter of months, according to observations by
contractors. Yet the code lumps them all into the same category. Remind me
not to buy a house built after 2004, when the new, higher-copper-content
treatments came into widespread use. More info at
www.shearwalls.com/treated_wood.html

My recommendation: Use borate-treated wood for mudsills and anything else
that will be protected from water or rain-splash. Borates do not corrode
fasteners and they don't harm mammals (in case you want to use mammals to
hold your structure together ;-)

There's also the exception to Section 2304.9.5 that allows anything BESIDES
nails, timber rivets, screws and lags to be mechanically galvanized. I
assume that this permits bolts, all-thread, and apparantly
hangers/clips/straps/tie-downs etc. to be mechanically galvanized instead of
HDG (note that electroplated is NOT the same as mechanically galvanized).
But from the reports I hear from contractors in the field, I would only
recommend HDG unless using borate-treated wood, and Stainless Steel for the
more aggressive chemicals. Simpson's website and catalog also have some
good information and recommendations.

Good luck--

Thor Matteson, SE
www.shearwalls.com

> From: PFFEI@aol.com
> Subject: galvanized vs electroplate
>
> the building code specifically requires hot dip galvanized wherever metal
> is in contact with pressure treated framing. city of LA plan includes
> this
> in plan check correction sheets and requires it to be written onto plans.
> in practical application, suppliers do not seem to be changing stock to
> hot dip galvanized for rods and hangers (hot dip galvanized nails seem to
> be
> readily available). we have contacted a couple of suppliers and they do
> not stocking hot dip galvanized rods and Simpson hangers in hot dip
> galvanized are a special order.
>
> i am curious how others are handling this issue. is electroplated steel
> (readily available) sufficient for rods and is the standard Simpson
> coating
> (galvanized G90) adequate for hangers?
>
> thank you for your comments.
>
> sincerely,
>
> paul franceschi, s.e.

Recommendation for Special CE Exam

Engineering Award for Children's TV Program?

Anyone know of such a thing? If so, I'd like to nominate Phineas and
Ferb as one of the best kids shows for promoting engineering.

--
Jordan

RE: test post

this is a test reply

-----Original Message-----
From: ronald_canete@mts.mhi.co.jp [mailto:ronald_canete@mts.mhi.co.jp]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 2:41 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: test post

this is a test post

test post

this is a test post

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Base Plate Design

I’m currently in the process of providing calculations for a base plate based on the methods provided in the Design Guide 1 that many of you graciously helped me obtain. However, I’ve ran into a bit of a snag –

Following the example on page 22 for an HSS12x12x3/8 with an18x18x1” base plate loaded with 25.2kips and 428.4 k-in, the bolts have a 2” edge distance in each direction.

I’ve determined the smaller value of A to be 2.1 inches, but the calculation for the critical section - (18-0.95*12)/2=3.3 – is beyond this distance – thus there is no compressive stress at this section. Further, I’m not following what the 1.3 is supposed to represent in the solution of Mpl at the top-right of that page.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Richard Calvert, EIT

Project Engineer

Lindemann Bentzon Bojack

Architects & Engineers

290 Citrus Tower Blvd, Suite 200, Clermont, Fl. 34711

tel: 352.242.0100 ext.141 fax: 352.242.0302

www.lbbe.com

Internet Email Confidentiality
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.

If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible

for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver

this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message

and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if

you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of

this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message

that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood

as neither given nor endorsed by it.

RE: AISC Design Guide 1

Certainly, but until that one is released, I’m not certain how else to provide these calculations. But thank you for the warning.

From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill@polhemus.cc]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:07 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: AISC Design Guide 1

Richard Calvert wrote:

I have received it – thank you to all who helped me out here.

Richard Calvert, EIT

Glad you got it, but bear in mind that there's a reason they pulled it. The new one will be based on considerably different criteria, as they have changed in the code from the original.

Proceed with caution.

Re: AISC Design Guide 1

Richard Calvert wrote:

I have received it – thank you to all who helped me out here.

Richard Calvert, EIT

RE: Enercalc 6-2D Frame Analysis question

A couple engineers on the list contacted me in private discussing the question I posted. Just to be clear, I do have maintenance program with Enercalc. The main reason I posted the question here is that I wanted to take advantage of a vast brain trust of the community which composed of a lot of smart people who is willing to share. There are so many things one can learn here. I remember back in the early time of the list, around 1998-1999..there was a discussion of master and slave relationship and Bruce Bates came out participated in the discussion with many others. That was a feast, to me. Knowing RISA by the time it was still 2D in my school, but having Bruce in that discussion was great, having so many talented engineers interact in that back and forth discussion was great. I do miss that time. Denis Wish at the time had a long discussion, other debate rather on SE and PE license...sorry Denis if I bring your name in my thread. I still remember the first question somebody posted back then on the push over...and somebody else explained what it is...so, in short, I want to thank all who share opinion, advise and suggestion with me on this list or in private.

Phuong Nguyen

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill@polhemus.cc]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:18 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Enercalc 6-2D Frame Analysis question

Bill Polhemus wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your following message has been delivered to the list
> seaint@seaint.org at 13:43:26 on 1 Jun 2009.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Michael Brooks wrote:
>> Sir, Please always contact ENERCALC technical support...
>>
> TRANSLATION: This is embarrassing.
>
>
> Mr. Brooks: the OP should be excused for asking his question of this
> list. Most software companies require that you pay for support above
> and beyond what you pay for software.
>
> In essence, if the software has bugs, the developers would like you to
> pay for them to find and fix them.
BTW, this wasn't aimed at Enercalc particularly. You could fill in the
name of just about any major software title, and the comment would still
apply.

-----------------------------------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.

RE: galvanized vs electroplate

I'm on digest mode, so forgive me if this has already been answered....

You probably are referring to IBC/CBC section 2304.9.5, which does not
discriminate between the many different kinds of chemicals used for
preservative or fire-retardant treating.

Good luck--

Thor Matteson, SE
www.shearwalls.com

RE: AISC Design Guide 1

I have received it – thank you to all who helped me out here.

Richard Calvert, EIT

Project Engineer

Lindemann Bentzon Bojack

Architects & Engineers

290 Citrus Tower Blvd, Suite 200, Clermont, Fl. 34711

tel: 352.242.0100 ext.141 fax: 352.242.0302

www.lbbe.com