Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Re: COMP Woodworks

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
So what do you use instead?

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Lewis <rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
Cc: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
Date: Thursday, April 23, 1998 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re: COMP Woodworks


>seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org,Internet writes:
>I find it pretty remarkable that no one that responded or anyone I know
uses
>the "concept" mode. Does it really take longer to define the geometry than
>to (separately) define the loads for each and every beam?
>
>Thanks,
>Bill
>
>
>I used it several years ago and it was very awkward.  I used it on a two
>story dormitory type structure with a post and beam foundation.  If memory
>serves me correctly I had problems with lack of memory (the computers, not
>mine).  I couldn't fit the whole structure in at one time but had to break
it
>into 1/4 areas do to programs limits, not my computers memory.  Also, the
>first floor beams were carrying first and second floor loads.  There was no
>provision for live load reduction so I had to run all 4 areas twice.  The
>first to size the joists and the second to size the beams.  Plus, as I
>recall, we had to make a lot of load types for different areas.  Say I had
an
>area of 40psf with a span of 10 ft. and 14 ft.  If I didn't put them into
>different load types then I got one result which was the 14 ft. span.  I
>ended up with quite a few loading patterns which were identical, except
that
>the joist spans differed.  It took a lot of time to do this.  I was using
>V1.0C.  I don't know if how it has been upgraded.
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>
>Richard Lewis, P.E.
>Missionary TECH Team
>rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org
>
>The service mission like-minded Christian organizations
>may turn to for technical assistance and know-how.
>
>
>