Saturday, October 31, 2009

Bay Bridge

My discussion of Bay Bridge eyebar repair failure on Barbara Simpson
Show today will start at 4:00 and will be from 4:00-6:00 instead of
5:00-6:00 as was planned earlier.

My appearance on Dr. Bill Wattenburg's show remains the same as stated
below.

A. Astaneh, Ph.D., P.E., Professor


If you are interested in current situation of Bay Bridge eyebar fracture
and its repair. this evening I will be live on Barbara Simpson Show ,
KSFO AM560 radio, San Francisco ,
http://www.ksfo560.com/showdj.asp?DJID=2364 at 5:00-6:00 Pacific Time
to discuss this particular item. I will also be on Dr. Bill Wattenburg's
show on KGO AM810, radio
http://www.kgoam810.com/djadditionalinformation.asp?djid=3552, . Both
are talk shows with call-ins.

Best wishes as always.

A. Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
UC-Berkeley


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

Bay Bridge

If you are interested in current situation of Bay Bridge eyebar fracture
and its repair. this evening I will be live on Barbara Simpson Show ,
KSFO AM560 radio, San Francisco ,
http://www.ksfo560.com/showdj.asp?DJID=2364 at 5:00-6:00 Pacific Time
to discuss this particular item. I will also be on Dr. Bill Wattenburg's
show on KGO AM810, radio
http://www.kgoam810.com/djadditionalinformation.asp?djid=3552, . Both
are talk shows with call-ins.

Best wishes as always.

A. Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
UC-Berkeley

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Masonry design books

Masonry Structures, Behavior and Design, 3rd Edition by Drysdale & Hamid.  It is available through the Masonry Society (www.masonrysociety.org).  I believe it is up to date through the 2005 MSJC (aka masonry code).

There is also the Masonry Designer's Guide, 5th edition.   It is also available through the Masonry Society and is current through the 2005 MSJC.  I would expect the 6th edition might be forthcoming soon and be up to date through the 2008 MSJC.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

On Oct 30, 2009, at 9:39 PM, Drew Morris wrote:

Can anyone give me any suggestions for a recent book for masonry design?  I have the MSJC code and some older books.  Thanks.

Friday, October 30, 2009

RE: Masonry design books

2006 Design of Reinforce Masonry Structures CMA of California and Nevada

 


From: Drew Morris [mailto:dmorris@bbfm.com]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 6:40 PM
To: SEAINT
Subject: Masonry design books

 

Can anyone give me any suggestions for a recent book for masonry design?  I have the MSJC code and some older books.  Thanks.

Masonry design books

Can anyone give me any suggestions for a recent book for masonry design?  I have the MSJC code and some older books.  Thanks.

OT: metric vs. imperial

Gary,

Purely tongue-in-cheek...  

I kid because with a previous employer, we practically solely did design-build projects for the US DoD, mainly support and maintenance facilities for various military installations.  My boss, a former military pilot, would say, "The official unit system for all federal work is not inch-pound, but metric."  It took me awhile to learn most of the metric to imperial unit conversions.

I joke about SI being antiquated...  It will go by the wayside like the slide rule, allowable stress design, etc. if the Americans have their way...  

AGAIN, PURE FRIDAY FUN!  DO NOT READ INTO THIS AS BEING ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT IS!

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. <design@hodgsoneng.ca> wrote:
David
There are a few things that I don't like about the SI system but I don't think antiquated is one of them, unless of course you're just trying to stir things up.
My biggest beef is with millimetres; gives you numbers several inches long.  Occasionally, I see calcs from Europe and they are still using centimetres, which seems a lot more sensible to me.
Gary

--
David Topete, SE

Re: Malaysian foot bridge

Andrew,

The cables you are talking about were in place and can be seen on some
photos. It looks like the failure was caused by the foundation these
cables were anchored into pulling out of the ground on one side of the
bridge.

SGE Mobile


On Oct 30, 2009, at 6:05, <akester@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> I am no bridge engineer so forgive my use of improper terminology,
> but I did not see any tension cables going from the top of the tower
> and down to the ground to anchor into a dead man? It looked like
> they were relying on overturning capacity of the foundations of the
> towers, that appeared woefully inadequate. I know traditionally the
> main support cables go over the tower and continue down at an angle
> to anchor to the ground to resist the tensile loads either via a
> massive block of concrete or anchorage into the ground.
>
> Really an avoidable tragedy, they also could have placed strict
> limits on how many people could be on the bridge at one time. Native
> cultures have built vine bridges over canyons for thousands of
> years...
>
> Andrew Kester, PE
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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: Malaysian foot bridge

I am no bridge engineer so forgive my use of improper terminology, but I did not see any tension cables going from the top of the tower and down to the ground to anchor into a dead man? It looked like they were relying on overturning capacity of the foundations of the towers, that appeared woefully inadequate. I know traditionally the main support cables go over the tower and continue down at an angle to anchor to the ground to resist the tensile loads either via a massive block of concrete or anchorage into the ground.

Really an avoidable tragedy, they also could have placed strict limits on how many people could be on the bridge at one time. Native cultures have built vine bridges over canyons for thousands of years...

Andrew Kester, PE

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Bay Bridge

David
There are a few things that I don't like about the SI system but I don't think antiquated is one of them, unless of course you're just trying to stir things up.
My biggest beef is with millimetres; gives you numbers several inches long.  Occasionally, I see calcs from Europe and they are still using centimetres, which seems a lot more sensible to me.
Gary


 


 

From: David Topete [mailto:d.topete73@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 07:59
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Bay Bridge

 

That, I believe, is what happened.  Winds of 30 MPH (= 48km/h for those who use that antiquated Systeme Internacional unit system...  :-p  ) on Monday night and early Tuesday morning apparently caused an imbalance in the tie rod repair, and snapped one rod.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. <design@hodgsoneng.ca> wrote:

I hope I am reading this right, but it looks to me like the tie rods are ending well above the pin.  This to me is asking for trouble. Any slight eccentricity or lateral load will tend to de-stabilize the saddle.
Gary



Mark Johnson wrote:

Here is a good image:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/10/27/ba-bridge1028_gr_SFCG1256699813.jpg

MJ

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


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




--
David Topete, SE

Re: Bay Bridge

Tom,
Km/hour is just as acceptable, at least in the cold white north. Well, wet north where I am.
Gary

Tom Skaggs wrote:

Not to be a smarty pants, but the SI unit for wind speed is m/s.  ;-p

 

Tom

 

From: David Topete [mailto:d.topete73@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 07:59
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Bay Bridge

 

That, I believe, is what happened.  Winds of 30 MPH (= 48km/h for those who use that antiquated Systeme Internacional unit system...  :-p  ) on Monday night and early Tuesday morning apparently caused an imbalance in the tie rod repair, and snapped one rod.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. <design@hodgsoneng.ca> wrote:

I hope I am reading this right, but it looks to me like the tie rods are ending well above the pin.  This to me is asking for trouble. Any slight eccentricity or lateral load will tend to de-stabilize the saddle.
Gary



Mark Johnson wrote:

Here is a good image:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/10/27/ba-bridge1028_gr_SFCG1256699813.jpg

MJ

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


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




--
David Topete, SE

Re: CA SE needed

Is that like Dog training..........
 
Joe Venuti
Johnson & Nielsen Associates
Palm Springs, CA
 
In a message dated 10/29/2009 1:30:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sdorado@tbengineeringinc.com writes:
Eric, please contact me at sdorado@tbengineeringinc.com with additional info we are a firm that works in educational bulldogs in CA

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


From: "Eric Tompos" <etompos@NTAinc.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:56:34 -0400
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Subject: CA SE needed

I have a client who manufacturers enclosures for pumps and other equipment. They have a pump house 10'x13'-4'x8' (WxLxH) that is being used at an education facility in the State of California. Obviously, this requires a California SE. If any CA SE on the list is interested in performing such work please contact me directly and I will provide more details.
 
Regards,
 
Eric J. Tompos, P.E.
NTA, Inc.

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal

Thursday, October 29, 2009

RE: Bridging for bar joist

But it just seems like yesterday.

Richard Hess S.E.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Ransom [mailto:ad026@hwcn.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:47 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Bridging for bar joist


Geez, Harold,
There aren't many people that I know who would consider 1977 to be recent!
:)

Regards
Paul
--
Paul Ransom, P.Eng.
ph 905 639-9628
fax 905 639-3866
ad026@hwcn.org


> From: Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com>

> I recently started this practice in about 1977.


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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.39/2468 - Release Date: 10/29/09
12:49:00


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Bridging for bar joist

Geez, Harold,
There aren't many people that I know who would consider 1977 to be recent!
:)

Regards
Paul
--
Paul Ransom, P.Eng.
ph 905 639-9628
fax 905 639-3866
ad026@hwcn.org


> From: Harold Sprague <spraguehope@hotmail.com>

> I recently started this practice in about 1977.


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: what is the allowable beam opening?

I ran into a similar problem about a year ago.  I searched the ACI journal database and found some helpful articles for aiding in design.  I will check in my folders for the specific articles I found.  I remember one method approached the problem by modeling the beam with differing stiffnesses to account for the holes.  There were also methods proposing a strut and tie model.

 

Matt Banville


From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmse4603@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:08 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: what is the allowable beam opening?

 

True, but the design guide will help him understand the principles

-gm

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Scott Maxwell <smaxwell@umich.edu> wrote:

The question was about a concrete beam, not steel.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI




On 10/22/09 7:33 PM, "Gerard Madden, SE" <gmse4603@gmail.com> wrote:

Get AISC design Guide #2

-gm

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Conrad Harrison <sch.tectonic@bigpond.com> wrote:

From memory the middle third of the beam depth. But otherwise design the beam for the hole.
 

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

South Australia


From: Noy Tiglao [mailto:hou69noy@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, 23 October 2009 05:14
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: what is the allowable beam opening?

 

what is the allowable beam opening for MEP utilities to pass or penetrate through concrete beam? is there any probition in the code that allows opening or holes in beam? thank you.
 


 

Start chatting with friends on the all-new Yahoo! Pingbox today!!  <http://sg.rd.yahoo.com/ph/messenger/pingbox/mailtagline/*http:/ph.messenger.yahoo.com/pingbox/>

It's easy to create your personal chat space on your blogs

 

 

 

 

Re: CA SE needed

"bulldogs" should say buildings

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


From: "Eric Tompos" <etompos@NTAinc.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:56:34 -0400
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Subject: CA SE needed

I have a client who manufacturers enclosures for pumps and other equipment. They have a pump house 10'x13'-4'x8' (WxLxH) that is being used at an education facility in the State of California. Obviously, this requires a California SE. If any CA SE on the list is interested in performing such work please contact me directly and I will provide more details.
 
Regards,
 
Eric J. Tompos, P.E.
NTA, Inc.

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal

Re: CA SE needed

Eric, please contact me at sdorado@tbengineeringinc.com with additional info we are a firm that works in educational bulldogs in CA

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


From: "Eric Tompos" <etompos@NTAinc.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:56:34 -0400
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Subject: CA SE needed

I have a client who manufacturers enclosures for pumps and other equipment. They have a pump house 10'x13'-4'x8' (WxLxH) that is being used at an education facility in the State of California. Obviously, this requires a California SE. If any CA SE on the list is interested in performing such work please contact me directly and I will provide more details.
 
Regards,
 
Eric J. Tompos, P.E.
NTA, Inc.

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal

CA SE needed

I have a client who manufacturers enclosures for pumps and other equipment. They have a pump house 10'x13'-4'x8' (WxLxH) that is being used at an education facility in the State of California. Obviously, this requires a California SE. If any CA SE on the list is interested in performing such work please contact me directly and I will provide more details.
 
Regards,
 
Eric J. Tompos, P.E.
NTA, Inc.

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal

Re: Bay Bridge

The San Francisco Chronicle has an article where the Caltrans officials say the tie-rods fatigued due to vibrations causing them to rub against the top piece of the saddle (...like taking a paper clip and working it back and forth until it breaks...)
s.macie
 
In a message dated 10/29/2009 11:39:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sgordin@sgeconsulting.com writes:
Some info/videos (not top quality) from back then are available here http://baybridgeinfo.org/mbar.
The crack looks pretty wide...
SG
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:17
Subject: RE: Bay Bridge

Does the eyelet crack look bigger to anyone else? I wasn't able to find the pictures from labor day, but there was one I saw.
 

Re: Bay Bridge

Some info/videos (not top quality) from back then are available here http://baybridgeinfo.org/mbar.
The crack looks pretty wide...
SG
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:17
Subject: RE: Bay Bridge

Does the eyelet crack look bigger to anyone else? I wasn't able to find the pictures from labor day, but there was one I saw.
 

RE: Bay Bridge

Does the eyelet crack look bigger to anyone else? I wasn't able to find the pictures from labor day, but there was one I saw.
 

Re: Bay Bridge

The tie rod doesn't look like it broke. It looks more like the weld on the saddle broke.
s.macie
 
In a message dated 10/29/2009 9:03:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tom.skaggs@apawood.org writes:

Not to be a smarty pants, but the SI unit for wind speed is m/s.  ;-p

 

Tom

 

From: David Topete [mailto:d.topete73@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 07:59
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Bay Bridge

 

That, I believe, is what happened.  Winds of 30 MPH (= 48km/h for those who use that antiquated Systeme Internacional unit system...  :-p  ) on Monday night and early Tuesday morning apparently caused an imbalance in the tie rod repair, and snapped one rod.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. <design@hodgsoneng.ca> wrote:

I hope I am reading this right, but it looks to me like the tie rods are ending well above the pin.  This to me is asking for trouble. Any slight eccentricity or lateral load will tend to de-stabilize the saddle.
Gary



Mark Johnson wrote:

Here is a good image:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/10/27/ba-bridge1028_gr_SFCG1256699813.jpg

MJ

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


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




--
David Topete, SE

Re: bridge debris

Does a two year bridge repair have less capacity than that of a 50 year
repair?
Are there less reviews for a two year repair?

What is a two year temporary fix? What is the design criteria difference
for:
* A new bridge
* An old bridge
* Temporary 2 year patch

What return period is expected for wind or seismic on a two year patch?
Historical Unreinforced Masonry Buidling=100 years? IBC=500years? 1000
years?
What would be the difference in cycles of loading for fatigue?

David Merrick


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Bay Bridge

Oh, now we're splitting hairs...  X^D

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Tom Skaggs <tom.skaggs@apawood.org> wrote:

Not to be a smarty pants, but the SI unit for wind speed is m/s.  ;-p

 

Tom

 

From: David Topete [mailto:d.topete73@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 07:59
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Bay Bridge

 

That, I believe, is what happened.  Winds of 30 MPH (= 48km/h for those who use that antiquated Systeme Internacional unit system...  :-p  ) on Monday night and early Tuesday morning apparently caused an imbalance in the tie rod repair, and snapped one rod.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. <design@hodgsoneng.ca> wrote:

I hope I am reading this right, but it looks to me like the tie rods are ending well above the pin.  This to me is asking for trouble. Any slight eccentricity or lateral load will tend to de-stabilize the saddle.
Gary



Mark Johnson wrote:

Here is a good image:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/10/27/ba-bridge1028_gr_SFCG1256699813.jpg

MJ

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


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




--
David Topete, SE




--
David Topete, SE

RE: Bay Bridge

Not to be a smarty pants, but the SI unit for wind speed is m/s.  ;-p

 

Tom

 

From: David Topete [mailto:d.topete73@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 07:59
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Bay Bridge

 

That, I believe, is what happened.  Winds of 30 MPH (= 48km/h for those who use that antiquated Systeme Internacional unit system...  :-p  ) on Monday night and early Tuesday morning apparently caused an imbalance in the tie rod repair, and snapped one rod.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. <design@hodgsoneng.ca> wrote:

I hope I am reading this right, but it looks to me like the tie rods are ending well above the pin.  This to me is asking for trouble. Any slight eccentricity or lateral load will tend to de-stabilize the saddle.
Gary



Mark Johnson wrote:

Here is a good image:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/10/27/ba-bridge1028_gr_SFCG1256699813.jpg

MJ

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


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




--
David Topete, SE

Re: Bay Bridge

That, I believe, is what happened.  Winds of 30 MPH (= 48km/h for those who use that antiquated Systeme Internacional unit system...  :-p  ) on Monday night and early Tuesday morning apparently caused an imbalance in the tie rod repair, and snapped one rod.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. <design@hodgsoneng.ca> wrote:
I hope I am reading this right, but it looks to me like the tie rods are ending well above the pin.  This to me is asking for trouble. Any slight eccentricity or lateral load will tend to de-stabilize the saddle.
Gary


Mark Johnson wrote:
Here is a good image:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/10/27/ba-bridge1028_gr_SFCG1256699813.jpg

MJ

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

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



--
David Topete, SE

Re: Bay Bridge

I hope I am reading this right, but it looks to me like the tie rods are
ending well above the pin. This to me is asking for trouble. Any slight
eccentricity or lateral load will tend to de-stabilize the saddle.
Gary

Mark Johnson wrote:
> Here is a good image:
> http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/10/27/ba-bridge1028_gr_SFCG1256699813.jpg
>
> MJ
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Eurocode snow loads

Is there anyone here with a good handle on snow loading re: Eurocode? I
have a client who is investigating a project lead in the French Alps,
and I have not dealt with Eurocode in the past. Please contact me off list.

--
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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: Malaysian bridge collapse

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Bay Bridge

It looks like the weld for the bracket failed on one side but not the other,  Could the rod on the failed bracket have had more tension than the other rod that didn't fail?
s.macie
 
 
In a message dated 10/28/2009 8:17:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, mblangy@satco-inc.com writes:
-----Original Message-----
From: SGE Structural [mailto:sgordin@sgeconsulting.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:47 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Bay Bridge

David,
 
Was it for sure the replacement part?
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 07:37
Subject: Re: Malaysian bridge collapse

Yeah, the part that replaced the failed "eye-bar" over the Labor Day weekend failed...  CC Myers has some 'splaining to do...
Luckily, no injuries.  Just a crappy commute for us in SF bay...

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Mark Johnson <markajohn@yahoo.com> wrote:
Forget that bridge, how about one a little closer to home:

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Cable-Snaps-on-Bay-Bridge-Hits-Truck-66711592.html

MJ
sent from my biege box

--- On Tue, 10/27/09, Stan Caldwell <stancaldwell@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Stan Caldwell <stancaldwell@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Malaysian bridge collapse
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 9:31 PM
> Bridge?  It looks more like playground
> equipment.  Was it an Engineers-Without-Borders project?
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:05 PM,
> David Topete <d.topete73@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The picture says a lot.
>  Seems super light...  
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:53 AM,
> SGE Structural <sgordin@sgeconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The
> picture gives an idea of what the
> bridge looked like.  The remnants of the tower
> may explain why the foundations were reported as "ripped
> out."  
>
> The article also mentions children jumping
> on the bridge before the failure.  This points
> to the paramount significance of the vibration issues,
> particularly, in pedestrian bridges.
>
>  
> V. Steve Gordin, SE
> Irvine CA
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: David Topete
>
> To: SEAINT
> Sent: Tuesday, October
> 27, 2009 11:34
> Subject: Malaysian
> bridge collapse
>
>
> Via Bloomberg news, a bridge in Malaysia collapses,
> barely 2 weeks old...http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aTPjcCNPPy90
>
>
>
> Hopefully,
> more info will follow.  I'm curious to find out if the
> failure was inadequate foundation design or embedment, poor
> overall design, or just poor workmanship.
>
>
> --
> David Topete, SE
>
>
>
> --
> David Topete, SE
>
>
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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: Bridging for bar joist

Ultimately what you are doing with bridging is stabilizing the various compression elements in the assembly that make up a bar joist.  By way of example: a deep long span bar joist can flip over just by its own weight. 
 
The X bracing may provide an "anchor point" for the horizontal bridging.  But an X brace WITH horizontal bridging is more positive and precludes the need for attaching the bridging to the wall.  I recently started this practice in about 1977.  I added up all of the costs for this since 1977 and it added up to zero dollars.  That is twice my beer bonus for the year. 

Regards, Harold Sprague


 

From: edjonson@msn.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Bridging for bar joist
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:28:25 -0700

Thank you for your responce.  I have older Vulcraft standard Details that shows bridging both ways, attached to wall and X braced.  I prefer not to attach to wall because of no coordination between bridging location and panel joints and some panels are heavly reinforced which would require core drilling.  Also if this was a steel building with spanderal beam i would think X bracing of bridging required.
 
So does X-bracing provide positive anchorage as required in SJI? 

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:16:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Bridging for bar joist
From: tm314052@gmail.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

My guess is that there is a misunderstanding.  You do not use braces to provide positive anchorage. They stabilize, not anchor.  It's now standard (page 33 of the '03 Vulcraft Catalog) to provide horiz bridging in the bay adjacent to a much stiffer element such as a wall.  What sort of concrete panel is it?  Could it be that the joist manuf thinks the bridging will be used to stabilize them?  Are the panels more of a cladding than a support?

Byron

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Kipp Martin <KMartin@carollo.com> wrote:
Ed,
 
I don't do a whole lot of work with steel joists, so keep that in mind.  I've usually seen that X-bracing converted to horizontal bracing in the end bay.  This is to allow the joist to deflect releative to the non-deflecting wall.  I usually allow the use of either X-bracing or horizontal bracing, leaving it up to the joist manufacturer.  But in answer to your question, I don't see how X-bracing does not provide positive anchorage.  I'd ask the joist manufacturer to explain.
 
--Kipp Martin
  Carollo Engineers
  Portland, Oregon

From: Edward Jonson [edjonson@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:43 AM
To: seaint
Subject: Bridging for bar joist

Question about anchorage of bridging.  I have project where X-bracing of end bay of bridging is called out on plans rather than continuing bridging to concrete panels.  Joist manufacture claims this X-bracing does not provide positive anchorage. So the question is does the X-bracing provide positive anchorage?  Any comments much appreciated.
 
Ed Jonson



Windows 7: I wanted more reliable, now it's more reliable. Wow!

RE: Malaysian bridge collapse

It looks from the photo that the design was very lacking. One tree floating down the stream in flood  stage would have easily wiped the bridge out. It looked to me as if it was designed for only a fraction of the forces that could be expected.

Stan Scholl, P.E.  (designer of several bridges) 

Re: bridge debris

I believe he did...  I don't necessarily care if the bridge is out of service for a few extra days.  This should allow enough time to gather the needed information to "fix" it right.  

However, considering the temporary fix will only be for a few years, till the new replacement span is brought on-line, well...  The fix may not be as permanent as it could/should be...

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:01 AM, <Rhkratzse@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 10/28/09 9:54:37 AM, mrkgp.se@gmail.com writes:
Would you be the cog in the machine to say I can not design this fix
with more data?


Good thoughts, but do you mean "withOUT" more data?

Ralph



--
David Topete, SE

Re: Bridging for bar joist

Ed,

'Positive anchorage with X-bracing' doesn't mean anything.  'Positive anchorage' with horizontal bracing doesn't mean anything either.  Braces stabilize, not anchor.  Welds and bolts anchor.  You need to find out exactly what the manuf is talking about.  X-bracing absolutely provides positive BRACING joist-to-joist and even joist-to-wall.  However, it is thought to provide bracing that is too rigid when connected to a vertically stiff element, thus the requirement for horiz bracing (Vulcraft says '...shall be used...') in that instance.  Just call them and clarify the comment.

You don't want to skimp on bracing because of a heavily reinforced wall. I've never seen anything short of a bank vault that was so heavily reinforced that you can't find space for a 1/2" post-installed anchor without coring.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Edward Jonson <edjonson@msn.com> wrote:
Thank you for your responce.  I have older Vulcraft standard Details that shows bridging both ways, attached to wall and X braced.  I prefer not to attach to wall because of no coordination between bridging location and panel joints and some panels are heavly reinforced which would require core drilling.  Also if this was a steel building with spanderal beam i would think X bracing of bridging required.
 
So does X-bracing provide positive anchorage as required in SJI? 

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:16:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Bridging for bar joist
From: tm314052@gmail.com
To: seaint@seaint.org


My guess is that there is a misunderstanding.  You do not use braces to provide positive anchorage. They stabilize, not anchor.  It's now standard (page 33 of the '03 Vulcraft Catalog) to provide horiz bridging in the bay adjacent to a much stiffer element such as a wall.  What sort of concrete panel is it?  Could it be that the joist manuf thinks the bridging will be used to stabilize them?  Are the panels more of a cladding than a support?

Byron

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Kipp Martin <KMartin@carollo.com> wrote:
Ed,
 
I don't do a whole lot of work with steel joists, so keep that in mind.  I've usually seen that X-bracing converted to horizontal bracing in the end bay.  This is to allow the joist to deflect releative to the non-deflecting wall.  I usually allow the use of either X-bracing or horizontal bracing, leaving it up to the joist manufacturer.  But in answer to your question, I don't see how X-bracing does not provide positive anchorage.  I'd ask the joist manufacturer to explain.
 
--Kipp Martin
  Carollo Engineers
  Portland, Oregon

From: Edward Jonson [edjonson@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:43 AM
To: seaint
Subject: Bridging for bar joist

Question about anchorage of bridging.  I have project where X-bracing of end bay of bridging is called out on plans rather than continuing bridging to concrete panels.  Joist manufacture claims this X-bracing does not provide positive anchorage. So the question is does the X-bracing provide positive anchorage?  Any comments much appreciated.
 
Ed Jonson


RE: Bridging for bar joist

Thank you for your responce.  I have older Vulcraft standard Details that shows bridging both ways, attached to wall and X braced.  I prefer not to attach to wall because of no coordination between bridging location and panel joints and some panels are heavly reinforced which would require core drilling.  Also if this was a steel building with spanderal beam i would think X bracing of bridging required.
 
So does X-bracing provide positive anchorage as required in SJI? 

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:16:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Bridging for bar joist
From: tm314052@gmail.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

My guess is that there is a misunderstanding.  You do not use braces to provide positive anchorage. They stabilize, not anchor.  It's now standard (page 33 of the '03 Vulcraft Catalog) to provide horiz bridging in the bay adjacent to a much stiffer element such as a wall.  What sort of concrete panel is it?  Could it be that the joist manuf thinks the bridging will be used to stabilize them?  Are the panels more of a cladding than a support?

Byron

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Kipp Martin <KMartin@carollo.com> wrote:
Ed,
 
I don't do a whole lot of work with steel joists, so keep that in mind.  I've usually seen that X-bracing converted to horizontal bracing in the end bay.  This is to allow the joist to deflect releative to the non-deflecting wall.  I usually allow the use of either X-bracing or horizontal bracing, leaving it up to the joist manufacturer.  But in answer to your question, I don't see how X-bracing does not provide positive anchorage.  I'd ask the joist manufacturer to explain.
 
--Kipp Martin
  Carollo Engineers
  Portland, Oregon

From: Edward Jonson [edjonson@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:43 AM
To: seaint
Subject: Bridging for bar joist

Question about anchorage of bridging.  I have project where X-bracing of end bay of bridging is called out on plans rather than continuing bridging to concrete panels.  Joist manufacture claims this X-bracing does not provide positive anchorage. So the question is does the X-bracing provide positive anchorage?  Any comments much appreciated.
 
Ed Jonson

Re: Bay Bridge

Here is a good image:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/10/27/ba-bridge1028_gr_SFCG1256699813.jpg

MJ

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: bridge debris

In a message dated 10/28/09 9:54:37 AM, mrkgp.se@gmail.com writes:
Would you be the cog in the machine to say I can not design this fix
with more data?


Good thoughts, but do you mean "withOUT" more data?

Ralph

bridge debris

Falling tension bars curled up on the bridge deck??
Did hear that correctly?
Caltrans must have their engineers working on overdrive!
I wonder if the problem is not enough data?
The modeling input must have missed this this one.

If you were one of the guys, at a desk after touring the debris, with
the task to fix it.
What if more surveys, strain gages and detail inspections are needed to
even begin the proper repair?
Would you be the cog in the machine to say I can not design this fix
with more data?
There will be others eager to do the fix as is.
Is your only option is to write a protest and retire from the job.

I do not know if this is the case but I thought it would be a good time
to discuss such an idea, when emotions are high, to better understand
the pressure an engineer can be under.

I have twice been faced with such decisions that radically changed the
direction if my career, life and temporarily my own stress levels.
With out knowing what would happen, my career only got better and more
interesting, but I had the time to be damn sure I was right with peer
support.

But, what if there is no time?

David Merrick, SE
Sacramento

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Bridging for bar joist

It depends on structural engineer's level of comfort with the Joist -
Bridging
and reinforced concrete system.

For high loads especially those involving LH series joists and girders, I
normally ask for some kind of connection at the bottom level making sure
that
welds are just there for stability and not the load transfer. Do not weld
to transfer any kind of loads or moment transfer if any ~ its just to
stabilize the joist or girder. Load will be transferred by your main conxxn
on top. Normally a 1'-0" x 1'-0" embed in precast panel or wall with flat
plate welded to the 1 ft^2 embed and inserted between bottom legs of joist
or girder will be enough.

Naeem Ghani, P.E.

On Oct 28 2009, Thomas Magnum wrote:

>My guess is that there is a misunderstanding. You do not use braces to
>provide positive anchorage. They stabilize, not anchor. It's now standard
>(page 33 of the '03 Vulcraft Catalog) to provide horiz bridging in the bay
>adjacent to a much stiffer element such as a wall. What sort of concrete
>panel is it? Could it be that the joist manuf thinks the bridging will be
>used to stabilize them? Are the panels more of a cladding than a support?
>
>Byron
>
>On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Kipp Martin <KMartin@carollo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ed,
>>
>> I don't do a whole lot of work with steel joists, so keep that in mind.
>> I've usually seen that X-bracing converted to horizontal bracing in the
>> end
>> bay. This is to allow the joist to deflect releative to the
>> non-deflecting
>> wall. I usually allow the use of either X-bracing or horizontal bracing,
>> leaving it up to the joist manufacturer. But in answer to your
>> question, I
>> don't see how X-bracing does not provide positive anchorage. I'd ask the
>> joist manufacturer to explain.
>>
>> --Kipp Martin
>> Carollo Engineers
>> Portland, Oregon
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Edward Jonson [edjonson@msn.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:43 AM
>> *To:* seaint
>> *Subject:* Bridging for bar joist
>>
>> Question about anchorage of bridging. I have project where X-bracing of
>> end bay of bridging is called out on plans rather than continuing
>> bridging
>> to concrete panels. Joist manufacture claims this X-bracing does not
>> provide positive anchorage. So the question is does the X-bracing provide
>> positive anchorage? Any comments much appreciated.
>>
>> Ed Jonson
>>
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Bridging for bar joist

My guess is that there is a misunderstanding.  You do not use braces to provide positive anchorage. They stabilize, not anchor.  It's now standard (page 33 of the '03 Vulcraft Catalog) to provide horiz bridging in the bay adjacent to a much stiffer element such as a wall.  What sort of concrete panel is it?  Could it be that the joist manuf thinks the bridging will be used to stabilize them?  Are the panels more of a cladding than a support?

Byron

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Kipp Martin <KMartin@carollo.com> wrote:
Ed,
 
I don't do a whole lot of work with steel joists, so keep that in mind.  I've usually seen that X-bracing converted to horizontal bracing in the end bay.  This is to allow the joist to deflect releative to the non-deflecting wall.  I usually allow the use of either X-bracing or horizontal bracing, leaving it up to the joist manufacturer.  But in answer to your question, I don't see how X-bracing does not provide positive anchorage.  I'd ask the joist manufacturer to explain.
 
--Kipp Martin
  Carollo Engineers
  Portland, Oregon

From: Edward Jonson [edjonson@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:43 AM
To: seaint
Subject: Bridging for bar joist

Question about anchorage of bridging.  I have project where X-bracing of end bay of bridging is called out on plans rather than continuing bridging to concrete panels.  Joist manufacture claims this X-bracing does not provide positive anchorage. So the question is does the X-bracing provide positive anchorage?  Any comments much appreciated.
 
Ed Jonson