Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Constructability article in April MSC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The original floor beams appear to be W18x40, at least to my poor eyes.

M.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jordan Truesdell, PE [mailto:seaint1(--nospam--at)truesdellengineering.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:16 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Constructability article in April MSC
> 
> Did anyone else see the constructibility article on p28 of 
> MSC this month and think, "the architect must have been 
> crazy"??  The gist of the article is that by doing a full 
> review and redesign using modern BIM and  having the 
> independent SE using the same software as the fabricator, 
> they saved hundreds of thousands of dollars and eliminated 
> 78% of the beams in a building. It sounds very impressive 
> until you look at what the A/E had done to start with: an 8" 
> deep steel beam depth spanning (I'm guessing) a 30' to 40' 
> bay. They had W8x40s on 3' 
> centers!   Most of the efficiency seems to come from 
> increasing the beam 
> depth to 18" and more than tripling the beam spacing.
> 
** 


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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(--nospam--at)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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********