Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: More Canada ???[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint-seaosc(--nospam--at)mail-list.com
- Subject: RE: More Canada ???
- From: "Polhemus, William" <wpolhemus(--nospam--at)craworld.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:01:06 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- List-subscribe: <mailto:SEAINT-SEAOSCemail@example.com>
Sounds like a short list of reasons we invariably push back against converting to SI. Personally, I don't give a rat's furry rump either way. I just wish we'd fish or cut bait. In 1996, my employer at the time prepared a large set of highway plans for a Texas DOT project in the Rio Grande Valley. TxDOT had decided to get ahead of the curve since the Federal DOT had mandated switching to SI for future projects, and this was one of the first jobs under the new SI standards. As we were completing that project, Congress put everything off indefinitely for the mandatory conversion. (Interestingly, the contractor on our highway project had an entire office trailer full of junior engineers whose task was to go through our plans and convert everything to feet, inches, pounds, cubic yards, etc. so their predominately Mexican workforce could use them). In TxDOT's case, they had spent untold thousands of publicly-funded manhours coming up with brand new specs and standards. Since they were going to all that trouble they decided to take the opportunity to completely revamp their entire body of standard documents so it wasn't simply a conversion to SI, but an addition of new standards and a major revamp of old standards. When they pulled the plug on SI conversion, TxDOT had to spend another few thousand manhours taking the SI versions they'd just published and converting THEM to Imperial units! Progress! -----Original Message----- From: seaint-seaosc(--nospam--at)mail-list.com [mailto:seaint-seaosc(--nospam--at)mail-list.com] On Behalf Of Paul Ransom Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:11 AM To: seaint-seaosc(--nospam--at)mail-list.com Subject: Re: [SEAINT-SEAOSC] More Canada ??? Bill, We don’t use the AISC conversions to SI. We tend to be more liberal in our Imperial-SI conversions. The design standards are calibrated to the metric calculations but are frequently dimensionally non-specific (e.g. use consistent dimensions and you get appropriate results). So, W6x15 = W150x22 Fy = 50 ksi = 350 MPa (vs 345 MPa per AISC) We still do projects in either system. Bolts are usually spec’d as imperial size but occasionally I see M20 instead of ¾” on an SI project. CISC provides a cross-reference table of sections in the Handbook of Steel Construction. They also have a spreadsheet that is available with all section properties in metric. Truncated 304 characters in the previous message to save energy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post your message to the list by sending it to: SEAINT-SEAOSC(--nospam--at)mail-list.com. The email messages sent to the list will be saved in an archive on the World Wide Web. These archives are located at: http://archive.mail-list.com/SEAINT-SEAOSC To contact the list owner, send your message to: SEAINT-SEAOSC-list-owner(--nospam--at)mail-list.com. 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. <http://cgi.mail-list.com/u?ln=seaint-seaosc&nm=seaintma%40euken.net>
- Re: More Canada ???
- From: Paul Ransom
- Re: More Canada ???
- Prev by Subject: Re: More Canada ???
- Next by Subject: Re: More Canada ???
- Previous by thread: Re: More Canada ???
- Next by thread: Re: More Canada ???