Structural Engineering: 2009-08-16

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Re: Off Topic: Economic Recovery -- RWM

dfisher@fpse.com wrote:
> Again, I agree 100%.
>
> Things are a mess and getting worse.
>
> D
>
> p.s. I didn't vote for him, BTW
>
I remembered something the other day, when a liberal friend of mine was
accusing me of being "racist" because I disagree with Pres. B. Hussein
Obama's policies.

I voted for an African-American candidate for President of the United
States in the 2000 election.

That year, I was less than enamored of George W. Bush - but of course
not about to vote for Algore.

However, by the time the Texas GOP Primary came 'round, there was only
one Republican candidate left still in the race, aside from Bush: Dr.
Alan Keyes.

I voted for Dr. Keyes, knowing that it was somewhat pointless but also
knowing that it wasn't a vote that would hurt anything, either.

Ironically, Dr. Keyes later ran as a Republican for the Illinois Senate
- against then-state Senator (when he bothered to show up in
Springfield) B. Hussein Obama.

If Dr. Keyes had only beaten Obama back in 2004, we could have avoided
all this mess. (Actually, I could say the same for if he had beaten GWB
in 2000!)

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Off Topic: Economic Recovery -- RWM

Again, I agree 100%.

Things are a mess and getting worse.

p.s. I didn't vote for him, BTW

Mark Steyn reports that the United States, Great Britain and Italy
> are the only three of the "big economy" nations that are still in
> recession, with negative economic growth.
>
> The U.S. economy contracted by ONE PERCENT in the second quarter of this
> year. That's as much CONTRACTION on an annual basis as we had EXPANSION
> in the WORST year in the Clinton and Bush43 years combined! France and
> Germany - usually the "big economy "leaders in sorry performance, both
> GREW by 0.3%.
>
> So, what do the Britain, Italy and the U.S. have in common? Each of them
> passed big "stimulus" bills in a panicky response to a mild world-wide
> recession. The U.S. passed by far the biggest; our economy shrunk by far
> the MOST.
>
> Coincidence? I think not. It is becoming apparent that turning over the
> governance (not to mention the economy) of this country to a bunch of
> socialist FREAKS has been the biggest "stuck on stupid" act of the
> electorate of these United States. The Dems are being told privately by
> their pollsters that they can look forward to losing AT LEAST twenty
> seats in the House next year, and probably four to five in the Senate.
> But some are predicting as much as a FIFTY seat loss in the House and TEN
> in the Senate.
>
> People are waking up to the massive doofus that we have running things,
> and his wings are about to be clipped.
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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: Off Topic: Economic Recovery -- RWM

Mark Steyn reports that the United States, Great Britain and Italy are the only three of the "big economy" nations that are still in recession, with negative economic growth.

The U.S. economy contracted by ONE PERCENT in the second quarter of this year. That's as much CONTRACTION on an annual basis as we had EXPANSION in the WORST year in the Clinton and Bush43 years combined! France and Germany - usually the "big economy "leaders in sorry performance, both GREW by 0.3%.

So, what do the Britain, Italy and the U.S. have in common? Each of them passed big "stimulus" bills in a panicky response to a mild world-wide recession. The U.S. passed by far the biggest; our economy shrunk by far the MOST.

Coincidence? I think not. It is becoming apparent that turning over the governance (not to mention the economy) of this country to a bunch of socialist FREAKS has been the biggest "stuck on stupid" act of the electorate of these United States. The Dems are being told privately by their pollsters that they can look forward to losing AT LEAST twenty seats in the House next year, and probably four to five in the Senate. But some are predicting as much as a FIFTY seat loss in the House and TEN in the Senate.

People are waking up to the massive doofus that we have running things, and his wings are about to be clipped.

Friday, August 21, 2009

RE: wind pressures

http://www.seaoh.org/issues.htm

From: Richard L. Hess [mailto:RLHess@HessEng.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 9:34 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: wind pressures

Thank you Gary. I will check out the Hawaii information; particularly since I am licensed and do work there for my California clients. I have forwarded your mail to others in SEAOSC where we have been discussing such a project.

Richard Hess, S.E.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ehrlich, Gary [mailto:gehrlich@nahb.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 7:37 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: wind pressures

Richard,

It sounds like LA County needs to follow Hawaii’s lead. They commissioned a research project using wind tunnel studies and CFD modeling to develop a statewide series of effective basic wind speed maps incorporating the local topographic effects. There is supposed to be a guide coming out from the Structural Engineering Association of Hawaii and ICC with the maps. In some cases, I understand the resulting basic wind speed is actually less than the 105mph cited in ASCE 7.

The compilation you suggest shouldn’t be that difficult to assemble. Assuming you can figure out the appropriate stations, NOAA/NWS has all sorts of weather data including local wind speeds; it’s just a matter of poking around their websites until you find the right information. I did it recently looking for maximum snow depths for a bunch of cities in the Southeast.

In the 2009 IRC, a jurisdiction must have some sort of documentation that wind speed-up is an issue before it can require consideration of topographic effects. We demanded that as the compromise for allowing provisions to be added, for just the reasons you describe.

Regards,

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

From: Richard L. Hess [mailto:RLHess@HessEng.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:15 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: wind pressures

Casey,

This general increase for the entire southern half of Los Angeles County appears to have been from an incorrect reading of the ASCE 7-05 wind diagram, Fig. 6-1, which shows that area as a Special Wind Region. That figure shows all of CA, OR and WA to be in the 85 mph rather than a 100 mph zone. Whereas the special wind regions are those where the engineer should check for areas where designated special topographic features require the use of higher values; an example being L.A. City Document No. P/BC 2008-016.

Both ASCE 7 and the UBC have had identical wind maps since the early '80's and the UBC had similar maps since 1961. Therefore, the basic wind speed in this area is 85 mph and higher speeds are called for only where terrain features and established local records indicate higher wind speeds exist. I do not think that such features and records exist in the flat areas of the Los Angeles basin where the new ordinance applies and it is pretty unreasonable to expect the builder of a residence or a small commercial or industrial building to pay for a specific wind study by a meteorologist to justify what is in ASCE 7 and what has worked well in the past. All that will do is add significant cost increases to every modest structure that is built.

What is needed is a compilation of areas with special topographic features such as mouths of canyons or mountain tops where very high winds have been recorded so that the public can be informed and not exposed to unnecessary and costly restrictions.

Richard Hess, S.E.

Re: Concrete Cover Over WF Beam

I don't see how the 3/8" of cover is going to stick and not break up into little pieces. There was a previous post on welding 3/8" plate to the top. Another fix would be using 3/8" thick diamond plate to you don't have a slippery flat piece of steel on top. This assumes that there won't be some sort of floor covering applied.

Gil Brock wrote:

Will,

What is going to stop the 3/8" of topping concrete from breaking up into little pieces over time with a little bit of movement, deflection etc? I seems awfully weak to me!

At 10:07 PM 21/08/2009, you wrote:

I have a case that is very similar to the following detail. I am only going to have 3/8" of concrete cover over the top of the WF beam.

Does any preparation to the beam typically done (sandblasting, applying epoxy) in order to insure the bond of the concrete to the top flange of the beam? This cover is not structural, is there a minimum cover recommended?

http://www.kerkstra.com/Hollowcore%20Details%2012%20-%2007/2312-1.pdf

Will Haynes

Regards Gil Brock
Prestressed Concrete Design Consultants Pty. Ltd. (ABN 84 003 163 586)
5 Cameron Street Beenleigh Qld 4207 Australia
Ph +61 7 3807 8022               Fax +61 7 3807 8422
email:            gil@raptsoftware.com
email:            sales@raptsoftware.com
email:            support@raptsoftware.com
webpage:         http://www.raptsoftware.com

RE: Concrete Cover Over WF Beam

Either way, it seems pretty problematic. If you leave the thin concrete cover, it's going to crack up, as several others have pointed out. Putting an exposed steel cover plate would create problems, as well – what happens when your beam isn't perfectly flat (or, at least, not flat enough for floor tolerances)? Suppose it has a little excessive natural camber? It seems like control of the floor flatness will be a challenge.

Can you consider other alternatives? The girder-slab system that Matthew Stuart suggested could be a possibility. Or maybe just a thicker topping slab?

Sorry, not a lot of help – just a few thoughts.

-- Joel

Joel Adair, PE, LEED® AP

Structural Engineer
SHWGROUP

From: William Haynes [mailto:gtg740p@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 12:39 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Concrete Cover Over WF Beam

It is going to be sealed concrete, no other finish.

I was thinking I could put a 3/8" cover plate along the entire length of the top flange of the beam and just pour the concrete up to each side of the cover plate . The top of the cover plate would then be exposed when looking from the floor level, which is alright for this application. But, there will be a shrinkage crack that will form on each side of the cover plate that would need to be closed with joint filler.

Any other ideas?

WH

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM, David Topete <d.topete73@gmail.com> wrote:

Expect the 3/8" concrete to spall/crack/crumble. No way around that. What's gonna be the finish flooring material? I'd say leave that strip bare during the placement of the topping, and come back with a non-shrink grout to fill above the WF. But, others may have a better/simpler idea...

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Bill Polhemus <bill@polhemus.cc> wrote:

William Haynes wrote:

I have a case that is very similar to the following detail. I am only going to have 3/8" of concrete cover over the top of the WF beam.

Does any preparation to the beam typically done (sandblasting, applying epoxy) in order to insure the bond of the concrete to the top flange of the beam? This cover is not structural, is there a minimum cover recommended?

http://www.kerkstra.com/Hollowcore%20Details%2012%20-%2007/2312-1.pdf

Will Haynes

Remember that "cover" is specifically for protection of steel reinforcement against the elements. Unless you are going to add shear transfer studs (e.g.) to the top of the beam, you cannot expect a predictable amount of "bond" between the concrete and the steel so it doesn't matter if you "prepare" the surface or not. I'm not aware of anything other than studs, angles, etc., welded to the top flange of the beam that would provide a predictable shear transfer.

So the short answer is "whatever is practical." Make sure you don't have a situation where cracks due to incompatible displacements result; otherwise, I don't know that there are any rules about cover.

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

NOTICE:
This e-mail transmission is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or other use of any of the information contained in this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the above address and delete it from your computer system; you should not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. The content of the message and or attachments may not reflect the view and opinions of the originating company or any party it is representing.

Re: Concrete Cover Over WF Beam

Will,

What is going to stop the 3/8" of topping concrete from breaking up into little pieces over time with a little bit of movement, deflection etc? I seems awfully weak to me!

At 10:07 PM 21/08/2009, you wrote:

I have a case that is very similar to the following detail. I am only going to have 3/8" of concrete cover over the top of the WF beam.

Does any preparation to the beam typically done (sandblasting, applying epoxy) in order to insure the bond of the concrete to the top flange of the beam? This cover is not structural, is there a minimum cover recommended?

http://www.kerkstra.com/Hollowcore%20Details%2012%20-%2007/2312-1.pdf

Will Haynes

Regards Gil Brock
Prestressed Concrete Design Consultants Pty. Ltd. (ABN 84 003 163 586)
5 Cameron Street Beenleigh Qld 4207 Australia
Ph +61 7 3807 8022               Fax +61 7 3807 8422
email:            gil@raptsoftware.com
email:            sales@raptsoftware.com
email:            support@raptsoftware.com
webpage:         http://www.raptsoftware.com

RE: wind pressures

Richard Hess, S.E.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ehrlich, Gary [mailto:gehrlich@nahb.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 7:37 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: wind pressures

Richard,

It sounds like LA County needs to follow Hawaii’s lead. They commissioned a research project using wind tunnel studies and CFD modeling to develop a statewide series of effective basic wind speed maps incorporating the local topographic effects. There is supposed to be a guide coming out from the Structural Engineering Association of Hawaii and ICC with the maps. In some cases, I understand the resulting basic wind speed is actually less than the 105mph cited in ASCE 7.

The compilation you suggest shouldn’t be that difficult to assemble. Assuming you can figure out the appropriate stations, NOAA/NWS has all sorts of weather data including local wind speeds; it’s just a matter of poking around their websites until you find the right information. I did it recently looking for maximum snow depths for a bunch of cities in the Southeast.

In the 2009 IRC, a jurisdiction must have some sort of documentation that wind speed-up is an issue before it can require consideration of topographic effects. We demanded that as the compromise for allowing provisions to be added, for just the reasons you describe.

Regards,

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

From: Richard L. Hess [mailto:RLHess@HessEng.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:15 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: wind pressures

Casey,

This general increase for the entire southern half of Los Angeles County appears to have been from an incorrect reading of the ASCE 7-05 wind diagram, Fig. 6-1, which shows that area as a Special Wind Region. That figure shows all of CA, OR and WA to be in the 85 mph rather than a 100 mph zone. Whereas the special wind regions are those where the engineer should check for areas where designated special topographic features require the use of higher values; an example being L.A. City Document No. P/BC 2008-016.

Both ASCE 7 and the UBC have had identical wind maps since the early '80's and the UBC had similar maps since 1961. Therefore, the basic wind speed in this area is 85 mph and higher speeds are called for only where terrain features and established local records indicate higher wind speeds exist. I do not think that such features and records exist in the flat areas of the Los Angeles basin where the new ordinance applies and it is pretty unreasonable to expect the builder of a residence or a small commercial or industrial building to pay for a specific wind study by a meteorologist to justify what is in ASCE 7 and what has worked well in the past. All that will do is add significant cost increases to every modest structure that is built.

What is needed is a compilation of areas with special topographic features such as mouths of canyons or mountain tops where very high winds have been recorded so that the public can be informed and not exposed to unnecessary and costly restrictions.

Richard Hess, S.E.

Re: Concrete Cover Over WF Beam

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM, David Topete <d.topete73@gmail.com> wrote:

Expect the 3/8" concrete to spall/crack/crumble. No way around that. What's gonna be the finish flooring material? I'd say leave that strip bare during the placement of the topping, and come back with a non-shrink grout to fill above the WF. But, others may have a better/simpler idea...

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Bill Polhemus <bill@polhemus.cc> wrote:

William Haynes wrote:

I have a case that is very similar to the following detail. I am only going to have 3/8" of concrete cover over the top of the WF beam.

Does any preparation to the beam typically done (sandblasting, applying epoxy) in order to insure the bond of the concrete to the top flange of the beam? This cover is not structural, is there a minimum cover recommended?

http://www.kerkstra.com/Hollowcore%20Details%2012%20-%2007/2312-1.pdf

Will Haynes

Remember that "cover" is specifically for protection of steel reinforcement against the elements. Unless you are going to add shear transfer studs (e.g.) to the top of the beam, you cannot expect a predictable amount of "bond" between the concrete and the steel so it doesn't matter if you "prepare" the surface or not. I'm not aware of anything other than studs, angles, etc., welded to the top flange of the beam that would provide a predictable shear transfer.

So the short answer is "whatever is practical." Make sure you don't have a situation where cracks due to incompatible displacements result; otherwise, I don't know that there are any rules about cover.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: being the prime/ Stan

The projects I have done as prime professional are about 20 new auto agencies ( one with restaurant within) about 6 churches, several private schools, hotels/motels, too many houses to count, etc.

I have several registered architects and others who work as sub-contractors for me as needed. I provide construction management services for larger projects- 4-6 story office buildings for rhe owner- which are designed by architects.

Stan Scholl, P.E.
Laguna Beach, CA

____________________________________________________________
Save on Moving Supplies. Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/BLSrjnsO5rrCiBtskxbDM71WFLTISfflD7g2QKUAf4arqdDI73BO5JiSw8I/

Re: Concrete Cover Over WF Beam

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Bill Polhemus <bill@polhemus.cc> wrote:

William Haynes wrote:

I have a case that is very similar to the following detail. I am only going to have 3/8" of concrete cover over the top of the WF beam.

Does any preparation to the beam typically done (sandblasting, applying epoxy) in order to insure the bond of the concrete to the top flange of the beam? This cover is not structural, is there a minimum cover recommended?

http://www.kerkstra.com/Hollowcore%20Details%2012%20-%2007/2312-1.pdf

Will Haynes

Remember that "cover" is specifically for protection of steel reinforcement against the elements. Unless you are going to add shear transfer studs (e.g.) to the top of the beam, you cannot expect a predictable amount of "bond" between the concrete and the steel so it doesn't matter if you "prepare" the surface or not. I'm not aware of anything other than studs, angles, etc., welded to the top flange of the beam that would provide a predictable shear transfer.

So the short answer is "whatever is practical." Make sure you don't have a situation where cracks due to incompatible displacements result; otherwise, I don't know that there are any rules about cover.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: wind pressures

Richard,

It sounds like LA County needs to follow Hawaii’s lead. They commissioned a research project using wind tunnel studies and CFD modeling to develop a statewide series of effective basic wind speed maps incorporating the local topographic effects. There is supposed to be a guide coming out from the Structural Engineering Association of Hawaii and ICC with the maps. In some cases, I understand the resulting basic wind speed is actually less than the 105mph cited in ASCE 7.

The compilation you suggest shouldn’t be that difficult to assemble. Assuming you can figure out the appropriate stations, NOAA/NWS has all sorts of weather data including local wind speeds; it’s just a matter of poking around their websites until you find the right information. I did it recently looking for maximum snow depths for a bunch of cities in the Southeast.

In the 2009 IRC, a jurisdiction must have some sort of documentation that wind speed-up is an issue before it can require consideration of topographic effects. We demanded that as the compromise for allowing provisions to be added, for just the reasons you describe.

Regards,

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

From: Richard L. Hess [mailto:RLHess@HessEng.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:15 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: wind pressures

Casey,

This general increase for the entire southern half of Los Angeles County appears to have been from an incorrect reading of the ASCE 7-05 wind diagram, Fig. 6-1, which shows that area as a Special Wind Region. That figure shows all of CA, OR and WA to be in the 85 mph rather than a 100 mph zone. Whereas the special wind regions are those where the engineer should check for areas where designated special topographic features require the use of higher values; an example being L.A. City Document No. P/BC 2008-016.

Both ASCE 7 and the UBC have had identical wind maps since the early '80's and the UBC had similar maps since 1961. Therefore, the basic wind speed in this area is 85 mph and higher speeds are called for only where terrain features and established local records indicate higher wind speeds exist. I do not think that such features and records exist in the flat areas of the Los Angeles basin where the new ordinance applies and it is pretty unreasonable to expect the builder of a residence or a small commercial or industrial building to pay for a specific wind study by a meteorologist to justify what is in ASCE 7 and what has worked well in the past. All that will do is add significant cost increases to every modest structure that is built.

What is needed is a compilation of areas with special topographic features such as mouths of canyons or mountain tops where very high winds have been recorded so that the public can be informed and not exposed to unnecessary and costly restrictions.

Richard Hess, S.E.

re: wyoming, topo effects

Gordon,

A total MWFRS (sum of the positive and negative pressures)of 38 psf could equate to anywhere from V= 130-150 mph for normal exposure and no other amplification factors per the Florida Building Code (which I believe is just a mutation of the IBC). But that is for END ZONES. Interior zones max out at V=150mph, roof angle=20 degrees, transverse loading, Plat=32.9psf.

I would say your wind pressures seem high, but I don’t do many topo calcs in Florida (very flat and low), and I don’t remember what your basic wind speed was.

FBC is free online, Chapter 16 is where the simplified pressure tables can be found. I am sure IBC has similar.

http://www2.iccsafe.org/states/florida_codes/

I was fortunate enough to go to Jackson Hole this last winter for snowboarding. That has to be one of the most beautiful surroundings for an airport anywhere in the world. Very beautiful part of the country with some very nice snow also.

HTH,

Andrew Kester, PE

Orlando, FL

Re: Concrete Cover Over WF Beam

William Haynes wrote:
> I have a case that is very similar to the following detail. I am only
> going to have 3/8" of concrete cover over the top of the WF beam.
>
> Does any preparation to the beam typically done (sandblasting,
> applying epoxy) in order to insure the bond of the concrete to the top
> flange of the beam? This cover is not structural, is there a minimum
> cover recommended?
>
> http://www.kerkstra.com/Hollowcore%20Details%2012%20-%2007/2312-1.pdf
>
>
> Will Haynes
Remember that "cover" is specifically for protection of steel
reinforcement against the elements. Unless you are going to add shear
transfer studs (e.g.) to the top of the beam, you cannot expect a
predictable amount of "bond" between the concrete and the steel so it
doesn't matter if you "prepare" the surface or not. I'm not aware of
anything other than studs, angles, etc., welded to the top flange of the
beam that would provide a predictable shear transfer.

So the short answer is "whatever is practical." Make sure you don't have
a situation where cracks due to incompatible displacements result;
otherwise, I don't know that there are any rules about cover.

RE: Concrete Cover Over WF Beam

You should consider using Girder-Slab beams:

http://www.girder-slab.com/

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

Senior Project Manager

Structural Department

Associate

Engineers and Consultants - CMX

200 Route 9

Manalapan, NJ 07726

732-577-9000 (Ext. 308)

908-309-8657 (Cell)

732-298-9441 (Fax)

mstuart@CMXEngineering.com

From: William Haynes [mailto:gtg740p@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 8:07 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Concrete Cover Over WF Beam

Concrete Cover Over WF Beam

RE: being the prime/ Stan

Are egos involved here?
I remember a 30 year old incident.

A structural engineer friend of mine was self employed.
He was allergic to architects but tolerated them sometimes when he just had to.

A multistoryed Concrete framed strcutured was to come up.
This architect had submitted his bid but had not got the job yet.
But he took the liberty of inviting my structural engineer friend to submit his price to him for providing structural engineering services to the architect.

The engineer wrote back inviting the architect to submit his price for providing architectural services.

Neither got this job!
But each got an opportunity for massaging their respective egos.
Needless to say neither worked together ever again.

The prime contractor who finally got the job on a turnkey basis entertained his professional contacts with this story and expressed amusement at the fact that persons with just a 3 percent to 5 percent stake were acting so big.

He hired an architect and an engineer to partner him in this turnkey contract and controlled both of them.

Regards
Vish

Thursday, August 20, 2009

RE: wind pressures

Casey,

Richard Hess, S.E.

-----Original Message-----
From: Casey K. Hemmatyar [mailto:khemmatyar@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:00 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: wind pressures

Stan:

LA County has adopted 100 mph wind special region area ordinance.

Khashayar "Casey" Hemmatyar, SE
Private email <khemmatyar(at)hotmail.com>
California

_________________________________________________________

From: sscholl2@juno.com [mailto:sscholl2@juno.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:35 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: wind pressures

This doesn't seem too large to me. In Los Angeles where we have never had a hurricane, we desing for 20 psf usually, so 38 psf doesn't seem too large.

Stan Scholl, P.E.

Laguna Beach, CA

RE: being the prime/ Stan

Ralph:

I’m speaking buildings here…

The new infrastructure JV we have started in Europe, We will be the prime on 100%.

Cheers,

David L. Fisher SE PE

Senior Principal

Fisher and Partners

372 West Ontario

Suite 301

Chicago 60654

312.622.0409 (m)

312.573.1701

312.573.1726 (f)

www.fpse.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Rhkratzse@aol.com [mailto:Rhkratzse@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:02 PM
To: dfisher@fpse.com; seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: being the prime/ Stan

David, you didn't address Andrew's question -- What type of projects are you talking about? Schools? Hospitals? Multi-housing? Sewage treatment plants? "Nucular" plants? ;)

Ralph

In a message dated 8/20/09 2:42:36 PM, dfisher@fpse.com writes:

Andrew:

We work directly for the owner on 80% of the projects we do.

The other 20%, we are a sub to the architect.

Ironically enough, those are the projects that are most difficult to get
Paid on.

I wonder why?

David L. Fisher SE PE
Senior Principal

Fisher and Partners
372 West Ontario
Suite 301
Chicago 60654

312.622.0409 (m)
312.573.1701
312.573.1726 (f)

www.fpse.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Kester [mailto:akester@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:18 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: re: being the prime/ Stan

Stan,
Really? If true, I am completely shocked. From reading SE mags and my own experience, I would expect the exact opposite. Maybe 5-10% of building projects or less with the SE as the prime. I think in over 10 years of experience in Florida, the only time the company I was working for was the prime was at a A & E firm, which doesn’t qualify.

Now I have been the prime on specialty engineering and residential projects, but all very small projects.

I don’t mean civil, bridge, misc. structural projects, I mean buildings.

I applaud you working directly for the owner, I definitely think that can be a good way to do it. What types of projects are we talking about?

Andrew Kester, PE
Orlando, FL

This discussion brings up a point which I have discussed previously on t=
he list- that is to work to be the prime consultant for the owner and hi=
re the architect and others rather than work for the architect. I believ=
e that about 70% of all buildings in the U.S. are designed by engineers =
as the prime consultant.

Stan Scholl, P.E.
Laguna Beach, CA

Re: being the prime/ Stan

Andrew:

We work directly for the owner on 80% of the projects we do.

The other 20%, we are a sub to the architect.

Ironically enough, those are the projects that are most difficult to get
Paid on.

I wonder why?

David L. Fisher SE PE
Senior Principal

Fisher and Partners
372 West Ontario
Suite 301
Chicago 60654

312.622.0409 (m)
312.573.1701
312.573.1726 (f)

www.fpse.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Kester [mailto:akester@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:18 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: re: being the prime/ Stan

Stan,
Really? If true, I am completely shocked. From reading SE mags and my own experience, I would expect the exact opposite. Maybe 5-10% of building projects or less with the SE as the prime. I think in over 10 years of experience in Florida, the only time the company I was working for was the prime was at a A & E firm, which doesn't qualify.

Now I have been the prime on specialty engineering and residential projects, but all very small projects.

I don't mean civil, bridge, misc. structural projects, I mean buildings.

I applaud you working directly for the owner, I definitely think that can be a good way to do it. What types of projects are we talking about?

Andrew Kester, PE
Orlando, FL

This discussion brings up a point which I have discussed previously on t=
he list- that is to work to be the prime consultant for the owner and hi=
re the architect and others rather than work for the architect. I believ=
e that about 70% of all buildings in the U.S. are designed by engineers =
as the prime consultant.

Stan Scholl, P.E.
Laguna Beach, CA

RE: being the prime/ Stan

Andrew:

We work directly for the owner on 80% of the projects we do.

The other 20%, we are a sub to the architect.

Ironically enough, those are the projects that are most difficult to get

Paid on.

I wonder why?

David L. Fisher SE PE

Senior Principal

Fisher and Partners

372 West Ontario

Suite 301

Chicago 60654

312.622.0409 (m)

312.573.1701

312.573.1726 (f)

www.fpse.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Kester [mailto:akester@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:18 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: re: being the prime/ Stan

Stan,

Really? If true, I am completely shocked. From reading SE mags and my own experience, I would expect the exact opposite. Maybe 5-10% of building projects or less with the SE as the prime. I think in over 10 years of experience in Florida, the only time the company I was working for was the prime was at a A & E firm, which doesn’t qualify.

Now I have been the prime on specialty engineering and residential projects, but all very small projects.

I don’t mean civil, bridge, misc. structural projects, I mean buildings.

I applaud you working directly for the owner, I definitely think that can be a good way to do it. What types of projects are we talking about?

Andrew Kester, PE

Orlando, FL

This discussion brings up a point which I have discussed previously on t=

he list- that is to work to be the prime consultant for the owner and hi=

re the architect and others rather than work for the architect. I believ=

e that about 70% of all buildings in the U.S. are designed by engineers =

as the prime consultant.

Stan Scholl, P.E.

Laguna Beach, CA

re: being the prime/ Stan

Stan,

Now I have been the prime on specialty engineering and residential projects, but all very small projects.

I don’t mean civil, bridge, misc. structural projects, I mean buildings.

I applaud you working directly for the owner, I definitely think that can be a good way to do it. What types of projects are we talking about?

Andrew Kester, PE

Orlando, FL

This discussion brings up a point which I have discussed previously on t=

he list- that is to work to be the prime consultant for the owner and hi=

re the architect and others rather than work for the architect. I believ=

e that about 70% of all buildings in the U.S. are designed by engineers =

as the prime consultant.

Stan Scholl, P.E.

Laguna Beach, CA