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]
I think the point about the 25k reaction is that that would equate to a 300+
psf Live Load (assuming a DL of 100 psf +/-).

I'm definitely curious about the constraints of the original design.  How
often does the original designer jump through hoops to meet some
unreasonable design constraint only to get ousted by the GC, steel supplier,
etc.?  I'd be surprised if there wasn't an interesting story to be told by
the original engineer.  Maybe in the next issue of MSC.

JC

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmadden(--nospam--at)maddengine.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:42 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Constructability article in April MSC


I think 25k mark is just what the end connection was supposed to be
designed for, not an additional point load.

Anyway, this just appears to be poor engineering, not something some
computer software solved. The computer software likely generated all the
shop drawings very quickly, but these are simple steel connections.

To me, the obvious improvements were choosing a stronger metal deck and
thicker fill and the moment connections at the columns to reduce the
mid-span bending moment of the girders.

The steel fabricator, or even a 1st year engineer, should have
recognized something was wrong with that original design within 10
seconds.

-gm

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Jones [mailto:mjones(--nospam--at)ecilr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:18 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Constructability article in April MSC

There was also a 25k end reaction on the beams...heavy storage (250 psf)
wouldn't give that sort of reaction.

Wonder if anyone from AISC will chime in to fill in the blanks. It's fun
to speculate, but knowing the facts is always a more edifying option.

M.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michelle Motchos [mailto:mmotchos(--nospam--at)sw-sc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:47 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Constructability article in April MSC
>
> The 18x40's @3' do look odd- High density filing stacks for
> all the college's paperwork maybe?
>
>
> Michelle Motchos, PE
> STEVENS & WILKINSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.
> Columbia, SC  29201
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy White [mailto:jwhite(--nospam--at)holbertapple.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:24 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Constructability article in April MSC
>
> Mike, you are correct - W18x40 @ 3' O.C. with 30 shear studs
> per beam(holy cow!). Of course maybe the ordinal plan was to
> drive a train on that floor?
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Jones [mailto:mjones(--nospam--at)ecilr.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:18 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Constructability article in April MSC
>
> 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********



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




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