Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Steel beam from 1913

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I will not be able to coupon tests as this is only 2 beams in a residential 
 garage. If the flange was originally 1/2" and has rusted to 3/8" ... I 
will use a similar percentage loss on the web where I cannot take a caliper 
to it. If there is a better line of reasoning, please enlighten me.

Valerie Eskelsen
636-448-3639 (cell)

 From: "Polhemus, William" <wpolhemus(--nospam--at)>
To: seaint-seaosc(--nospam--at)
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: [SEAINT-SEAOSC] Steel beam from 1913

I'm just curious.

I'm not exactly sure why the designation of a beam that old matters.

When you are designing a system, you do so with prospective materials,
things that don't even exist yet in their final form. Therefore, it makes
sense to design using standard size designations, etc.

But when something is in situ - especially if it has been there as long as
this - the original design assumptions have little relevance if any.

When I look at a project like that, I don't really care what the designated
size was, that someone used. I care only about what's there.

Fortunately in a case like this where you are accessing the in situ system,
you have merely to take measurements. You can and should take into account
ACTUAL lengths, thicknesses, etc, rather than what was originally assumed
in the design.

And that information will include such things as how much of what was put

Truncated 1440 characters in the previous message to save energy.

Post your message to the list by sending it to: 

The email messages sent to the list will be saved in an archive on the World Wide Web.
These archives are located at:

To contact the list owner, send your message to:

Sponsored By: Pacific Structural & Forensic Engineers Group, Inc. (PSFEG)

To unsubscribe, switch to/from digest, get on/off vacation, or change your email address, click here.