Saturday, July 25, 2009

Re: License

Take our SE exam Bill and see if you can pass. You won't have visual
analysis with you either.

On 7/25/09, Bill Polhemus <bill@polhemus.cc> wrote:
> Grathwol, Albert wrote:
>>
>> However, unlike CA, they do have Continuing Ed requirements.
>
> CA doesn't have continuing ed requirements?
>
> But the CA engineers here want to make fun of TEXAS?
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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: License

Grathwol, Albert wrote:
Re: License
However, unlike CA, they do have Continuing Ed requirements.
CA doesn't have continuing ed requirements?

But the CA engineers here want to make fun of TEXAS?

Re: License

Gerard Madden, SE wrote:
It's very laughable, and of course I realize that won't help me get the license.

I am wondering - what would be the underlying wisdom for such decision?  Can it possibly be legal?
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
In the mid-80s, I had a professor at UAB who wanted to get his Alabama license. He had previously taken the exam(s) in Texas, when he was employed at Texas A&M. However, because at that time Texas allowed you to take the FoE and P&P exams one right after the other, BEFORE you had obtained your four years' experience, Alabama would not recognize comity with Texas (this was true of many states at the time, due to the unorthodox manner in which Texas administered it's licensure - then called registration - of professional engineers).

He was very angry about it, but ended up having to retake the P&P exam anyway, despite several appeals to the Alabama board.

Again, each state is sovereign in this regard. We aren't even talking about "interstate commerce," we're talking about the right to practice professional engineering WITHIN a sovereign state.

I can understand Steve's frustration, but the level of ignorance about this leaves me convinced that our Republic is in deep doo-doo. Rampant ignorance of the constitution and of constitutional principles is exemplified everywhere you go these days. They're about to confirm a Supreme Court justice who is on record as saying that the color of one's skin or language of origin should be factors in the law - in other words, justice is no longer blind.

We're heading into the abyss, no mistake.

Re: License

Simple. It's because the range of such proccedings has been limited by
judicial review.

If you took your interpretation, any law of whatever kind enacted by
one state would have effect in every other.

I could move to Nebraska from California, and claim that my license as
a purveyor of "medical" marijuana from CA left me immune from
prosecution by NE authorities. That makes a mockery of the concept of
Federalism and state sovereignty.

As to the DL example, that's because each state DECIDES to temporarily
accept the licenses. And you typically don't have to retake a driving
test. Just like they decide to accept testing done in another state
for PE.

Q.E.D.

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

On Jul 24, 2009, at 1:11 PM, "Lloyd Pack" <packman90@qwest.net> wrote:

> Hello Bill,
>
> How is this not a violation of the U.S. Constitution Article IV,
> Section I., which reads as
> follows?
>
> "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
> Acts, Records, and
> judicial Proceedings of every other State."
>
> It would seem that most states don't give full faith and credit.
> Marriage, at least,
> you don't have to redo upon moving to another state. And it seems
> that adoptions
> are honored from one state to the next. Other contracts seem to be
> upheld. Driver's
> licenses are accepted for a period of time, but you still have to
> retest in all the the states
> that I'm aware of, when you transfer your license. No faith and
> credit there.
>
> Take Care,
> Lloyd
>
> On 22 Jul 2009 at 18:29, Bill Polhemus wrote:
>
>>
>> And that is the prerogative of Utah, which is a sovereign state.
>> CA, otoh, gets to keep a ten-year-
>> old building code, if it wants. And Texas can have no Code at all.
>>
>> I don't agree with everything my state does, but its sovereignty is
>> not negotiable.
>>
>> William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.Via iPhone 3G
>>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Friday, July 24, 2009

RE: Concrete Fix - Manure Storage Slab

I vote for #1.  #2 patch will probably leak. #3 too expensive.  #4 wouldn't stop all the leaks.
Al


From: Mark Puccio [mailto:mpuccio@mpsqrd.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:35 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Concrete Fix - Manure Storage Slab

We have a project where a reinforced concrete manure holding tank with sloped embankments was installed with improper waterstops. This tank was intended to be installed per NRCS standards where the concrete provides primary containment i.e. no liner.  I’m looking for ideas on how to fix. Current considerations area as follow:

 

1 - Place a geomembrane on top of the existing faulty concrete then apply a protective layer, maybe 4”, of concrete. Install control joints without water stop. Probably thicken concrete at base of side slope for some distance. Anyone see a problem with this approach?

 

2 – Repair using a detail similar to that shown in ACI 350.2R-6 Fig 3.1 with a 12” neoprene or sim. continuous patch over the existing improper waterstops. However, this holding tank gets cleaned out with end loaders at end of year so the patch would need to have concrete cover and I think that would get ripped off and or the feathered end would not hold. Thoughts or ideas?

 

3 – Place a new slab on top of existing slab to meet required spec. with all reinforcing and properly installed waterstops. I am worried about getting excessive random cracking due to placing on top of 2-yr old concrete – would placing a thin layer of sand or sand and a vapor retarder help? Of course if they installed the waterstops wrong the first time… this may not be the best choice…

 

4- Pressurize under slab to find leaks and then try to inject with expanding sealant in specific areas to seal. This is probably the low cost method but not sure how well this could be done. Anyone have experience trying this?

 

Any thoughts, ideas or related experiences would be appreciated.

 

Mark L. Puccio P.E., S.E.

Structural Engineer/ Principal

mpuccio@mpsqrd.com

Re: AWWA D100-05 3.5.1 question

Sid,
 
You are asking a not-so-specific question about a very special component of a very special type of structure.  For example, it is not clear what kind of tank you got; with little known, you are unlikely to get a sensible response. 
 
Most importantly, though, the location of the girder may be dictated by some non-structural considerations (operational, maintenance, health, safety, etc.).  Such considerations need to be discussed and cleared with the architect, AHJ, and AWWA itself. 
 
In my experience, I had a very little problem contacting people who wrote the AWWA code and getting comprehensive answers to my questions.
 
Good luck,
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 14:14
Subject: RE: AWWA D100-05 3.5.1 question

Compression flange issue could be resolved by providing a rectangular or square tube section with adequate section modulus instead of built up channel generally provided on outside of tank.

So, can I use a tube section of adequate section modulus inside the tank as stiffening girder?

 

Thanks!

 

Sid Lakhani

 

 

 


From: Garner, Robert [mailto:rgarner@moffattnichol.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:05 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: AWWA D100-05 3.5.1 question

 

Will this result in an unbraced flange in compression instead of tension?

 


From: Lakhani, Sid [mailto:slakhani@ebmud.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 3:18 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Cc: Lakhani, Sid
Subject: FW: AWWA D100-05 3.5.1 question

 

 

 


AWWA (Eq 3-35) on page 35 provides formula for required section modulus for Girder.

 

My question is:  Can this girder be provided either inside or outside the tank? Does it have to be on outside the tank?

 

I would like to provide the girder inside the tank to avoid interference with the ladder/stair.

 

Thanks!

 

Sid Lakhani

 

 

Concrete Fix - Manure Storage Slab

We have a project where a reinforced concrete manure holding tank with sloped embankments was installed with improper waterstops. This tank was intended to be installed per NRCS standards where the concrete provides primary containment i.e. no liner.  I’m looking for ideas on how to fix. Current considerations area as follow:

 

1 - Place a geomembrane on top of the existing faulty concrete then apply a protective layer, maybe 4”, of concrete. Install control joints without water stop. Probably thicken concrete at base of side slope for some distance. Anyone see a problem with this approach?

 

2 – Repair using a detail similar to that shown in ACI 350.2R-6 Fig 3.1 with a 12” neoprene or sim. continuous patch over the existing improper waterstops. However, this holding tank gets cleaned out with end loaders at end of year so the patch would need to have concrete cover and I think that would get ripped off and or the feathered end would not hold. Thoughts or ideas?

 

3 – Place a new slab on top of existing slab to meet required spec. with all reinforcing and properly installed waterstops. I am worried about getting excessive random cracking due to placing on top of 2-yr old concrete – would placing a thin layer of sand or sand and a vapor retarder help? Of course if they installed the waterstops wrong the first time… this may not be the best choice…

 

4- Pressurize under slab to find leaks and then try to inject with expanding sealant in specific areas to seal. This is probably the low cost method but not sure how well this could be done. Anyone have experience trying this?

 

Any thoughts, ideas or related experiences would be appreciated.

 

Mark L. Puccio P.E., S.E.

Structural Engineer/ Principal

mpuccio@mpsqrd.com

RE: AWWA D100-05 3.5.1 question

Compression flange issue could be resolved by providing a rectangular or square tube section with adequate section modulus instead of built up channel generally provided on outside of tank.

So, can I use a tube section of adequate section modulus inside the tank as stiffening girder?

 

Thanks!

 

Sid Lakhani

 

 

 


From: Garner, Robert [mailto:rgarner@moffattnichol.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:05 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: AWWA D100-05 3.5.1 question

 

Will this result in an unbraced flange in compression instead of tension?

 


From: Lakhani, Sid [mailto:slakhani@ebmud.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 3:18 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Cc: Lakhani, Sid
Subject: FW: AWWA D100-05 3.5.1 question

 

 

 


AWWA (Eq 3-35) on page 35 provides formula for required section modulus for Girder.

 

My question is:  Can this girder be provided either inside or outside the tank? Does it have to be on outside the tank?

 

I would like to provide the girder inside the tank to avoid interference with the ladder/stair.

 

Thanks!

 

Sid Lakhani

 

 

RE: Concrete Piles w/ an R = 1.0!!

Thanks to Gerald and Steve for the input, and, yes, it is an SDC of E. I like the idea of using an R of 2.0 per Table 15.4-2 and have used this for open decks on hillside slopes, but chapter 15 is for "Nonbuilding Structures", and it seems that I am stuck with Chapter 12, ("Building Structures"), if we are underpinning an existing structure.
 
Thanks agian to all,
 
Larry Hauer S.E.
 

From: sgordin@sgeconsulting.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Concrete Piles w/ an R = 1.0!!
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:53:00 -0700

Larry,
 
On top of this, by using the Table 12.2-1 G criterion for ordinary moment resistant concrete frames, your system must be designed/detailed as such.  By the same table, such systems are not permitted in SDC C or higher (where, I presume, your project is).
 
Assuming that the piles considerably project above the ground, I would try to consider the columns as true inverted pendulum structures (similarly to what Gerard is suggesting) per ASCE Table 15.4-2, R=2.  IMO, this will still be conservative. 
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:44
Subject: Re: Concrete Piles w/ an R = 1.0!!

Can't you just consider it a foundation and not a Lateral System? or is this thing sticking up out of the ground a ways?\

Does taking the reaction from the structure above and multiplying it by OMEGA (for the structure above) feasibly? This should accomplish the intent of the code (this member shall not yield)....

-gm

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:38 AM, <lrhauer@earthlink.net> wrote:
To All,

For designing an underpinning concrete pile, (caisson), foundation of an existing structure where the piles are a cantilevered element, (no grade beams at the top), ASCE Table 12.2-1 Item "G" requires an R of 1.0 for seismic loads. Can anyone give me some input on justification to use a higher R value, or am I stuck with the R of 1.0?

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



Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. Check it out.

RE: License

It has always been my understanding that some of the motivation by certain State Boards to restrict comity licensing and or reciprocity was to limit the number of engineers within the State and thereby prevent to much competition between out-of-state individuals and the locals. The State that I have heard this said the most about at one time was Florida for both Engineers and Dentists. I also heard through the grape vine several years ago that an individual brought a suit against the State of Carolina under the ICC restraint of trade regulations because the SC Board would not grant him comity/reciprocity. As I recall in this case the State of SC required that you be licensed in your State of residency so when the guy tried to get his SC license using a PE from a State other than his home state (where he could not get licensed for whatever reason), they rejected his application.

 

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: SGE Structural [mailto:sgordin@sgeconsulting.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:20 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: License

 

Lloyd,

 

Except for yourself, I wish some Constitutional scholar would clarify this section (I actually know one, but he is quite busy now).  The intent appears pretty clear, but can the licenses be formally attributed to "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings?" 

 

Otherwise - wow.

 

V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA

 

 

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

From: Lloyd Pack

Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:11

Subject: Re: License

 

Hello Bill,

How is this not a violation of the U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section I., which reads as
follows?

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and
judicial Proceedings of every other State."

It would seem that most states don't give full faith and credit.  Marriage, at least,
you don't have to redo upon moving to another state.  And it seems that adoptions
are honored from one state to the next.  Other contracts seem to be upheld. Driver's
licenses are accepted for a period of time, but you still have to retest in all the the states
that I'm aware of, when you transfer your license.  No faith and credit there.

Take Care,
Lloyd

On 22 Jul 2009 at 18:29, Bill Polhemus wrote:

>
> And that is the prerogative of Utah, which is a sovereign state. CA, otoh, gets to keep a ten-year-
> old building code, if it wants. And Texas can have no Code at all.
>
> I don't agree with everything my state does, but its sovereignty is not negotiable.
>
> William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.Via iPhone 3G
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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: License

Interesting comments here.
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:41
Subject: RE: License

It has always been my understanding that some of the motivation by certain State Boards to restrict comity licensing and or reciprocity was to limit the number of engineers within the State and thereby prevent to much competition between out-of-state individuals and the locals. The State that I have heard this said the most about at one time was Florida for both Engineers and Dentists. I also heard through the grape vine several years ago that an individual brought a suit against the State of Carolina under the ICC restraint of trade regulations because the SC Board would not grant him comity/reciprocity. As I recall in this case the State of SC required that you be licensed in your State of residency so when the guy tried to get his SC license using a PE from a State other than his home state (where he could not get licensed for whatever reason), they rejected his application.

 

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: SGE Structural [mailto:sgordin@sgeconsulting.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:20 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: License

 

Lloyd,

 

Except for yourself, I wish some Constitutional scholar would clarify this section (I actually know one, but he is quite busy now).  The intent appears pretty clear, but can the licenses be formally attributed to "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings?" 

 

Otherwise - wow.

 

V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA

 

 

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

From: Lloyd Pack

Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:11

Subject: Re: License

 

Hello Bill,

How is this not a violation of the U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section I., which reads as
follows?

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and
judicial Proceedings of every other State."

It would seem that most states don't give full faith and credit.  Marriage, at least,
you don't have to redo upon moving to another state.  And it seems that adoptions
are honored from one state to the next.  Other contracts seem to be upheld. Driver's
licenses are accepted for a period of time, but you still have to retest in all the the states
that I'm aware of, when you transfer your license.  No faith and credit there.

Take Care,
Lloyd

On 22 Jul 2009 at 18:29, Bill Polhemus wrote:

>
> And that is the prerogative of Utah, which is a sovereign state. CA, otoh, gets to keep a ten-year-
> old building code, if it wants. And Texas can have no Code at all.
>
> I don't agree with everything my state does, but its sovereignty is not negotiable.
>
> William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.Via iPhone 3G
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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: License

Lloyd,
 
Except for yourself, I wish some Constitutional scholar would clarify this section (I actually know one, but he is quite busy now).  The intent appears pretty clear, but can the licenses be formally attributed to "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings?" 
 
Otherwise - wow.
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Lloyd Pack
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:11
Subject: Re: License

Hello Bill,

How is this not a violation of the U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section I., which reads as
follows?

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and
judicial Proceedings of every other State."

It would seem that most states don't give full faith and credit.  Marriage, at least,
you don't have to redo upon moving to another state.  And it seems that adoptions
are honored from one state to the next.  Other contracts seem to be upheld. Driver's
licenses are accepted for a period of time, but you still have to retest in all the the states
that I'm aware of, when you transfer your license.  No faith and credit there.

Take Care,
Lloyd

On 22 Jul 2009 at 18:29, Bill Polhemus wrote:

>
> And that is the prerogative of Utah, which is a sovereign state. CA, otoh, gets to keep a ten-year-
> old building code, if it wants. And Texas can have no Code at all.
>
> I don't agree with everything my state does, but its sovereignty is not negotiable.
>
> William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.Via iPhone 3G
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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: License

Hello Bill,

How is this not a violation of the U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section I., which reads as
follows?

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and
judicial Proceedings of every other State."

It would seem that most states don't give full faith and credit. Marriage, at least,
you don't have to redo upon moving to another state. And it seems that adoptions
are honored from one state to the next. Other contracts seem to be upheld. Driver's
licenses are accepted for a period of time, but you still have to retest in all the the states
that I'm aware of, when you transfer your license. No faith and credit there.

Take Care,
Lloyd

On 22 Jul 2009 at 18:29, Bill Polhemus wrote:

>
> And that is the prerogative of Utah, which is a sovereign state. CA, otoh, gets to keep a ten-year-
> old building code, if it wants. And Texas can have no Code at all.
>
> I don't agree with everything my state does, but its sovereignty is not negotiable.
>
> William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.Via iPhone 3G
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Concrete Piles w/ an R = 1.0!!

Larry,
 
On top of this, by using the Table 12.2-1 G criterion for ordinary moment resistant concrete frames, your system must be designed/detailed as such.  By the same table, such systems are not permitted in SDC C or higher (where, I presume, your project is).
 
Assuming that the piles considerably project above the ground, I would try to consider the columns as true inverted pendulum structures (similarly to what Gerard is suggesting) per ASCE Table 15.4-2, R=2.  IMO, this will still be conservative. 
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:44
Subject: Re: Concrete Piles w/ an R = 1.0!!

Can't you just consider it a foundation and not a Lateral System? or is this thing sticking up out of the ground a ways?\

Does taking the reaction from the structure above and multiplying it by OMEGA (for the structure above) feasibly? This should accomplish the intent of the code (this member shall not yield)....

-gm

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:38 AM, <lrhauer@earthlink.net> wrote:
To All,

For designing an underpinning concrete pile, (caisson), foundation of an existing structure where the piles are a cantilevered element, (no grade beams at the top), ASCE Table 12.2-1 Item "G" requires an R of 1.0 for seismic loads. Can anyone give me some input on justification to use a higher R value, or am I stuck with the R of 1.0?

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: Concrete Piles w/ an R = 1.0!!

Can't you just consider it a foundation and not a Lateral System? or is this thing sticking up out of the ground a ways?\

Does taking the reaction from the structure above and multiplying it by OMEGA (for the structure above) feasibly? This should accomplish the intent of the code (this member shall not yield)....

-gm

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:38 AM, <lrhauer@earthlink.net> wrote:
To All,

For designing an underpinning concrete pile, (caisson), foundation of an existing structure where the piles are a cantilevered element, (no grade beams at the top), ASCE Table 12.2-1 Item "G" requires an R of 1.0 for seismic loads. Can anyone give me some input on justification to use a higher R value, or am I stuck with the R of 1.0?

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

Concrete Piles w/ an R = 1.0!!

To All,

For designing an underpinning concrete pile, (caisson), foundation of an existing structure where the piles are a cantilevered element, (no grade beams at the top), ASCE Table 12.2-1 Item "G" requires an R of 1.0 for seismic loads. Can anyone give me some input on justification to use a higher R value, or am I stuck with the R of 1.0?

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: License

IIRC, Texas has no SE license. It's a PE license. Which I understand you can take by passing the NCEES Struct I exam?

IF so, I believe I already passed that exam since it was during the first day of the California SE exam.

It's very laughable, and of course I realize that won't help me get the license.

-gm


On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Scott Maxwell <smaxwell@umich.edu> wrote:
Every state has every right to question your qualifications...even if it is more or less a "formality".  The fact that you might find it laughable will not help you get your license in another state.

FWIW, you should have little trouble getting your PE license in TX due to comity from your CA PE license.  The only potential hurdle is that CA only requires 2 years of experience to get you PE license, while TX (and every other state to my knowledge) likely requires 4 years.  So, it would come down to how TX "counts" that 4 years...is it 4 years before you can apply (in which case, you would be fine as you certainly have more than 4 years experience since you have your CA SE...2 years to the PE and then 3 more years to the SE...total at least 5 years)?  Or 4 years before you can sit to take the test?  If it is the later, they could deem that you sat too early for the exam under their rules, even though it was perfectly "legal" in CA, and thus they could potentially make you take it again (and yes, it would be asinine and stupid of them to require it, but does not change the fact that you would still have to retake it if they so decided).  I kind of doubt it, but I do not know for sure.

They likely could care less that you have a CA SE license, even if it means that you passed a much harder exam than any of the NCEES PE exams (which I am pretty sure they use).  And they could care less that you might find it laughable that they might not care about your "superior" CA SE license.  It is their right to choose whatever requirements that they like.  So, the reality is that your definitely harder to achieve CA SE gets you squat in most states, but your CA PE license will basically get you comity/reciprocity (and I am pretty sure that until CA went to using the Struct I and Struct II exam, it was entirely possible that NEITHER got you squat in Illinois...but I am not completely sure on the CA SE license and comity with Illinois...I know that your CA PE license will get you an Illinois PE license, which is essentially meaningless if you want to practice structural engineering in IL, but NOT an IL SE license).  And yes, it is HIGHLY ironic that the easier to get license is what gets you comity with most states, but the tougher to get license will likely not get you anything in most states.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI



On 7/22/09 1:53 PM, "Gerard Madden, SE" <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:

Bill,

Us CA engineers took the same exams you did. We also had to take 2 more tests to get our PE (Surveying and Seismic). Then we had to sit for another 2 day exam (after 3 more years of work) to get our SE license then pay every two years to maintain both licenses.

The fact that Texas could question my qualifications is laughable (A state where apparently you don't even need to stamp drawings for a large facility where a 1 billion dollar professional sports franchise can hold practices), but I wouldn't be surprised in the least that they would make me sit for the exam again.

The California SE exam now has the NCEES Structural I and II exam and I believe the NCEES SE III exam that washington and CA both use.

Next time you talk out of your ass about our "Non-standard" exams, wipe first.

-gm

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Bill Polhemus <bill@polhemus.cc> wrote:
Every state sets it's own standards and doesn't have to grant comity (although of course other states can "retaliate").

Up until about 20 years ago Texas' standards were considered "too lax" by some states who would not accept the Texas P.E. as acceptable for reciprocity.

If CA continues to insist on administering a nonstandard exam, this is one likely consequence.

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

On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:26 AM, "SGE Structural" <sgordin@sgeconsulting.com> wrote:

Good morning,
 
Yesterday I was informed by an official with the licensing board of the State of Utah that this state does not accept the reciprocity applications from engineers who did not take the NCEES exams (for example, the CA SE exams are not accepted since 2004).  In other words, to become licensed as a Civil or Structural engineer in Utah, a person like me has to take the examinations again.
 
I am wondering - what would be the underlying wisdom for such decision?  Can it possibly be legal?
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
 
 
 




RE: Steel Framing - Aerobic vibration criterion

The cheapest means of controlling vibration is to add mass.  It is much more efficient and cost effective than adding stiffness.  Go to a thicker concrete slab with normal weight concrete. 
 
Another approach is to add distributed mass dampers.  This method has been employed many many times.  I used it in the 1970's to control the vibration at a shopping mall by suspending concrete weights from springs. 
 
There is also a manufacturer of plastic containers that are suspended by springs and attached to the deck from below.  The plastic containers are filled with water until you get the appropriate mass for the damping you desire.  I can not recall the manufacturer. 
 
 http://www.aees.org.au/Proceedings/2006_Papers/257_Saidi_et_al.pdf

Regards, Harold Sprague


 

Subject: FW: Steel Framing - Aerobic vibration criterion
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:39:44 -0400
From: mStuart@cmxengineering.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

Posted on behave of another engineer at CMX:
Hello All,

 

I am in the process of designing a new composite slab on steel framing system for basketball and racquetball use as well as cardio activities.    It's a new 13'000 ft^2 mezzanine.   The approximate column grid is 30' x 31'.   

 

I am following the requirements for vibration criteria for aerobic type of floors per AISC design guide 11 – Chapter 5.   Per table 5.3, the minimum required floor frequency for an aerobic floor is 9 to 10 Hz.   I am having a difficult time trying to achieve this frequency even after significantly increasing the size of both interior and exterior girders (e.g., W30 x 116 & W24 x 55 respectively) as well as the typical beams (W21 x 44 although for stresses and deflection – even a W14 x22 or W16 x 26 could work).  I've even divided the 30'-0" bay into 4 spaces yielding 7'-6" spacing for the filler beams.   These sizes get me a mere 6 Hz?  While it may be possible to achieve the required frequency by increasing the beam and girder sizes even more, the sizes will be so large and uneconomical. 

 

Does anyone have any prior experience designing composite slab on steel framing systems for such vibration criteria?   I am looking for a reality check on member sizes?  Any guidance/suggestions would be greatly appreciated? 

 

Please let me know ASAP.

 

Thanks.

Ashu Patel, P.E.                                                     
 Project Manager
Structural Department
CMX
200 State Highway Nine
Manalapan, NJ 07726-0900
Phone (732) 577-9000 ext. 334
Fax (732) 577-9888
website: www.cmxengineering.com

 



Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Search, add, and share the web's latest sports videos. Check it out.

RE: Steel Framing - Aerobic vibration criterion

Since I'm replying to the digest version, I may be responding a little bit
late. But, my thoughts are:

1) Try the design with light weight concrete, or if you've already used
lightweight concrete then try it with normal weight.

2) Vary the spacing between joists or girders. If adjacent "panels" have
different frequencies, then the amplitude of vibrations should be greatly
reduced.

3) When all else fails get creative. Some of the retrofit examples in the
design guide suggest using a queen's post truss to stiffen up an existing
beam. To me that is very much preferable to adding a column!

Sincerely,  

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

Subject: FW: Steel Framing - Aerobic vibration criterion
From: "Stuart, Matthew" <mStuart@cmxengineering.com>
To: <seaint@seaint.org>

<snip>

Does anyone have any prior experience designing composite slab on
steel =
framing systems for such vibration criteria? I am looking for a =
reality check on member sizes? Any guidance/suggestions would be =
greatly appreciated? =20

=20

Please let me know ASAP.

=20

Thanks.

Ashu Patel, P.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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Lifecycle Study of five parking decks on the Urbana Champaign, University of Illinois

I have a relationship with a firm that specializes in Lifecycle Studies of reinforced concrete and pre cast structures.

 

The firm is MSL Experts: http://mslexperts.com/

 

MSL (Materials Service Life, LLC) has developed software that accurately determines the service life of new and existing reinforced concrete structures. The software was developed under a consortium of the US Navy, material suppliers and other related stakeholders such that eventually the software will be made available commercially. Their program was recently used successfully by the NJDOT to salvage an existing bridge on Route 21 that was originally scheduled for demolition.

 

MSL is looking for an interested local structural engineer with either parking deck design or restoration experience. An email notice of the RFQ is provided below.

 

Please email me privately if you are interested.

Illinois Public Higher Education Procurement Bulletin

 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

QBS #PSSU09157

Request for Professional Services Qualifications (QBS): Parking Structure Lifecycle Analysis 2009

First published Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Project Description
The University of Illinois is seeking professional services consultant to perform a Lifecycle Study of five parking decks on the Urbana Champaign campus.

Please see the attached files for more information.

Letter Submission

Qualifications and supporting materials will be accepted at the address below until 4:00 PM, Thursday July 30, 2009:

F&S Planning Division
PPSB
1501 South Oak Street
Attention: James R. Lev, jrlev@illinois.edu (217) 244-5095
Champaign, IL 61820

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: License

I got my Illinois SE through NCEES records process - no problem.  However, unlike CA, they do have Continuing Ed requirements.
Al
 


From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:51 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: License

Every state has every right to question your qualifications...even if it is more or less a “formality”.  The fact that you might find it laughable will not help you get your license in another state.

FWIW, you should have little trouble getting your PE license in TX due to comity from your CA PE license.  The only potential hurdle is that CA only requires 2 years of experience to get you PE license, while TX (and every other state to my knowledge) likely requires 4 years.  So, it would come down to how TX “counts” that 4 years...is it 4 years before you can apply (in which case, you would be fine as you certainly have more than 4 years experience since you have your CA SE...2 years to the PE and then 3 more years to the SE...total at least 5 years)?  Or 4 years before you can sit to take the test?  If it is the later, they could deem that you sat too early for the exam under their rules, even though it was perfectly “legal” in CA, and thus they could potentially make you take it again (and yes, it would be asinine and stupid of them to require it, but does not change the fact that you would still have to retake it if they so decided).  I kind of doubt it, but I do not know for sure.

They likely could care less that you have a CA SE license, even if it means that you passed a much harder exam than any of the NCEES PE exams (which I am pretty sure they use).  And they could care less that you might find it laughable that they might not care about your “superior” CA SE license.  It is their right to choose whatever requirements that they like.  So, the reality is that your definitely harder to achieve CA SE gets you squat in most states, but your CA PE license will basically get you comity/reciprocity (and I am pretty sure that until CA went to using the Struct I and Struct II exam, it was entirely possible that NEITHER got you squat in Illinois...but I am not completely sure on the CA SE license and comity with Illinois...I know that your CA PE license will get you an Illinois PE license, which is essentially meaningless if you want to practice structural engineering in IL, but NOT an IL SE license).  And yes, it is HIGHLY ironic that the easier to get license is what gets you comity with most states, but the tougher to get license will likely not get you anything in most states.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On 7/22/09 1:53 PM, "Gerard Madden, SE" <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:

Bill,

Us CA engineers took the same exams you did. We also had to take 2 more tests to get our PE (Surveying and Seismic). Then we had to sit for another 2 day exam (after 3 more years of work) to get our SE license then pay every two years to maintain both licenses.

The fact that Texas could question my qualifications is laughable (A state where apparently you don't even need to stamp drawings for a large facility where a 1 billion dollar professional sports franchise can hold practices), but I wouldn't be surprised in the least that they would make me sit for the exam again.

The California SE exam now has the NCEES Structural I and II exam and I believe the NCEES SE III exam that washington and CA both use.

Next time you talk out of your ass about our "Non-standard" exams, wipe first.

-gm

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Bill Polhemus <bill@polhemus.cc> wrote:
Every state sets it's own standards and doesn't have to grant comity (although of course other states can "retaliate").

Up until about 20 years ago Texas' standards were considered "too lax" by some states who would not accept the Texas P.E. as acceptable for reciprocity.

If CA continues to insist on administering a nonstandard exam, this is one likely consequence.

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

On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:26 AM, "SGE Structural" <sgordin@sgeconsulting.com> wrote:

Good morning,
 
Yesterday I was informed by an official with the licensing board of the State of Utah that this state does not accept the reciprocity applications from engineers who did not take the NCEES exams (for example, the CA SE exams are not accepted since 2004).  In other words, to become licensed as a Civil or Structural engineer in Utah, a person like me has to take the examinations again.
 
I am wondering - what would be the underlying wisdom for such decision?  Can it possibly be legal?
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
 
 
 



RE: AWWA D100-05 3.5.1 question

Will this result in an unbraced flange in compression instead of tension?

 


From: Lakhani, Sid [mailto:slakhani@ebmud.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 3:18 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Cc: Lakhani, Sid
Subject: FW: AWWA D100-05 3.5.1 question

 

 

 


AWWA (Eq 3-35) on page 35 provides formula for required section modulus for Girder.

 

My question is:  Can this girder be provided either inside or outside the tank? Does it have to be on outside the tank?

 

I would like to provide the girder inside the tank to avoid interference with the ladder/stair.

 

Thanks!

 

Sid Lakhani