them to do design calculations for us.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Conrad Harrison" <sch.tectonic@bigpond.com>
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:06 PM
Subject: RE: SAP SHELL DESIGN / Steel factory
>
>
> hossein mardanlo
>
> you wrote "..., but we can't say software never design."
>
>
> Actually we can. Determining the size of beams and resistances of
> connections is not design (even if that is a menu title in software). That
> exercise is analysis and evaluation. Design is concerned with the need for
> the beam and connections. To me Design proper concerns determining form
> and
> function, and is the qualitative aspect, and initially probably comprises
> of
> more questions than answers. Such as why do we need the beam? How can it
> be
> supported? It is not about crunching numbers or mathematical models. Such
> is
> the synthesis and abstraction of the real world system, it is part of the
> iterative process of design, but not design itself. Design requires
> creativity, imagination and ingenuity. A block of silicon doesn't have
> such
> ability. Design is what you do before building a model in software. (but
> it
> could be argued that is a matter of semantics).
>
> If you want to know about hot-rolling and cold-rolling, then need to look
> on
> books dealing with mechanics of manufacturing processes: in particular
> bulk-deformation processes, cold-working and hot-working. If just want to
> know the process flow diagram for such plants then some of the steel
> producers and steel institutes have websites providing details and
> explanations of steel production.
>
> Also I think some members of the listserver, need to understand that some
> countries do not have the population that the USA has, nor the level of
> specilisation and regulatory systems, and as a consquence engineers in
> other
> countries may well be called upon to provide input beyond their area of
> specialisation but to the best of their ability. If they don't provide
> such
> input, then there will be no engineering at all on many projects.
> Redirecting clients down the street to a more competent specialist is not
> an
> option. The consultants present and available have to become specialists
> in
> everything, just as they basically were at the dawn of the industrial
> revolution. Industrial Development and the human knowledgebase is not a
> constant throughout the world, or even within a single country. Each town
> is
> advancing technologically at a different pace.
>
> Under such circumstances the minimum risk option is to keep everything
> simple and within the designer/engineers comfort zone, and to allow the
> technology to evolve with the engineers increasing knowledge or until the
> specialists become available on local ground. The designers comfort zone
> is
> obviously widely variable and dependent on the risks they are willing to
> take. However keeping a distance may be the more negligent act.
> Stepping-in
> and stopping or haulting a project, and insisting more time be spent on
> design and specialists be brought in, is often better than stepping away.
> But then there is always the competitive market place and trade secrets,
> and
> huge licensing fees, putting obstacles in the way of getting that
> specialist
> knowledge to allow development.
>
> So in many instances the starting place for design is actually
> demonstrating
> the need, to the client, that the services of specialists designers should
> be obtained, or that the project should be simplified and made less
> ambitious. (Though often those specialists are little more than number
> crunchers and provide no real design service.)
>
> Also given that this is an international forum, it is helpful to know
> where
> people are, and just how international the list is, and also
> education/qualifications. After all there are more than US codes of
> practice. The IBC is not international, and there is more to structures
> than
> building design. And the response to students is not going to be the same
> as
> that to the licensed or otherwise qualified. (To a certain extent
> licensing
> is worthless, for some licensee's have significant experience and others
> have very little. So it doesn't really help selecting the right person for
> the job. The license simply provides for less variation in competence, but
> still have huge variation in ability and proficiency.)
>
> A steel production plant sounds interesting, and following a discussion on
> such design would be interesting. But 2/3 of the answer lies in putting
> the
> question clearly. Which is why I stated design starts with more questions
> than answers. Questions which are too general and broad ranging are
> difficult to provide answers to. Questions need to be refined, as the
> questions become more specific, answers become more apparent, and are more
> readily given.
>
> Since the listserver is for discussing structural issues, the steel
> production plant needs to be broken down into structural components and
> the
> structural issues surrounding those questioned. You have mentioned the
> foundations: but for which part of the cold-rolling mill specifically? I
> doubt that the whole facility could be described by a couple of drawings
> that some one could just pop in an email. I've been involved with the
> upgrade of a cement production facility, and the consultants I worked for
> at
> the time, opened a separate office to handle the project. There were
> several
> mechanical and structural engineers on the project, and involved some 40
> belt conveyors and several buildings, and it was only an upgrade: there
> were
> a few hundred drawings on the project (and the only CAD drawing at the
> time
> was the civil/survey drawing, and as I recollect the documents ultimately
> became the property of the manufacturer not the consultants.) I doubt any
> steel production plant is any simpler or "free" from proprietary
> constraints, and a new plant documented on CAD or otherwise with documents
> available for viewing by computer still rarer.
>
> So please ask a more specific question, and I'm sure you will get more
> reasonable and helpful answers.
>
>
> Steven CONRAD Harrison
> B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
> mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
> Roy Harrison & Associates
> Consulting Engineers (Structural)
> PO Box 104
> Para Hills
> SA 5096
> South Australia
> tel: 8395 2177
> fax: 8395 8477
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hossein mardanlo [mailto:hosein.mardanloo@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2007 00:32
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: SAP SHELL DESIGN
>
> ok, I got the point. You are not familiar with SAP. If you were, probably
> you must had known that CSI company, producaer of SAP2000 has been adding
> some new features to include concrete shell design based on specific
> design
> Codes. I wanted to know if anyone had more information about it. It is of
> very much surprise for me that you beleive softwares can not DESIGN
> structural elements. Many of list members know that ETABS and SAP and many
> other softwares do design for beams, columns, and ETABS does for walls. Of
> course every engineer must check the results, but we can't say software
> never design.
>
> Hossein Mardanlu
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Wright" <chrisw@skypoint.com>
> To: <seaint@seaint.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: SAP SHELL DESIGN
>
>
>>
>> On May 20, 2007, at 10:44 AM, hossein mardanlo wrote:
>>
>>> It seems you have got a lot of negative energy from someone recently!
>> It sure does, doesn't it?
>>
>>> Anyway, I have been using applied mechanics for many years
>>> successfully,
>
>>> maybe more than you!
>> It's possible--I wouldn't bet on it.
>>
>>> And of course I always will need to learn more, even though someones
>>> like you may doesn't need for more learning! But using new methods are
>>> always necessary. I wish You could answer my question!
>> Your question really had no answer, since you didn't specify what kinds
>> of suggestions you were after. SAP2000 does what it does--
>> nothing to suggest. SAP 2000 is like ANSYS or NASTRAN or other general
>> purpose FEA software--they do analysis, not design. Design is an
>> engineer's job. Sometimes you'll find program features that seem to
>> mimic
>
>> design, but they're usually doing iterative analysis based on
>> user-specified criteria. Codes like the AISC Code or the Boiler Code
>> rely
>
>> almost exclusively on manual calculation and proportions for details
>> which have given satisfactory service.
>>
>> That said there's not a whole lot of structural code provisions
>> specifically addressing general shell theory. I don't use SAP2000, but
>> from what I read the Code provisions it incorporates are aimed at framed
>> structures. The design methodology in the ASME Codes is based on shell
>> theory, and there are areas in those Codes that are written around the
>> use of FEA output, but the loading and service doesn't apply for all
>> fields of engineering. It's not too tough to apply equivalent standards
>> to shell element results for metals, once you know enough mechanics to
>> understand the basis of Code provisions. ANSYS, for example, has no AISC
>> Code post processor, but it's fairly simple to do the arithmetic with a
>> spreadsheet using tabular output if you're dealing with plate structures
>> or shells. If there are programs which do anything other than simple
>> Div
>
>> 1 design (like Caesar or Codeware) I'm not aware of them. ANSYS will
>> provide primary, secondary and peak stresses, for Nuclear Code
>> assessment, but it's really doing an analysis task, not design, and it
>> should only be used by engineers who really know their stuff, because
>> it's easy to confuse things.
>>
>> You didn't mention whether your plant design problem involved metal or
>> concrete. I daresay the ACI has provisions for shell like cooling towers
>> or domes. There may even be software which does design tasks like re-bar
>> placement but I don't do concrete, and I don't keep up with it. The ASME
>> Nuclear Code also covers concrete containment vessels, but again, I
>> don't
>
>> know of software that actually designs these things. Again--it's the
>> engineer who does the design, using FEA results.
>>
>> Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
>> chrisw@skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen.
>> .......................................| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania
>> 1864)
>> http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw/
>>
>>
>>
>> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>> * 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********