PowerStroke79_PE - Engineer Boards
Jump to content
Engineer Boards

PowerStroke79_PE

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    431
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

62 Excellent

About PowerStroke79_PE

  • Rank
    Principal in Charge

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
    Structural
  • License
    Working on it!
  • Calculator
    Casio
  • Discipline
    Structural

Recent Profile Visitors

2,191 profile views
  1. Yes. And the AISC LRFD Second Edition is Silver. Does the 9th edition (Green Book) not have an LRFD companion?
  2. So, I used AISC Guide 16. It allows the use of pretensioned or snug tight bolts. Guide 4 is a little too much for just windloads and a small building such as the one I"m doing (16ft eave height.) However, AISC Steel Construction Manual 2nd Edition LRFD or ASD 9th Edition have a great section on extended plate moment connections. Luckily my old boss had these on the shelf collecting dust. All this said, AISC construction manual 14th Edition does have a note that the moment used for calculation does NOT have to be the flexural capacity of the Beam. I just some how missed it. It allows you to use 60% of the Flexural Capacity at minimum unless of course your applied moment is greater than this, but less than the full flexural capacity of your beam. Just thought I'd answer my own question in case someone else might make use of this.
  3. The AISC Guide 4 seems to present examples and design guide based on seismic criteria. It states the first edition was more so for wind loads. Unfortunately, I can't find the first edition. If I understand correctly the approach for this design is based on the Moment Capacity of the beam and not the applied moment at the connection. Can anyone agree or comment on this? My design is for minimal loading compared to the capacity of the member, so the bolt and plate result is twice as I had projected. Also, I am not in seismic conditions. Any thoughts on solving for Mpl by assigning the plate thickness wanted, as opposed to solving for it, and comparing phi Mpl vs applied moment at connection and calling it a day? Thanks,
  4. Sept 3rd , Last day to sign up for SE exam in TX. Just sayin. 😎
  5. Well a huge disappointment is Staad Pro and Ram Elements use NDS 2005 Code. I thought about it really hard, and just couldn't let that go. I'm sure I could find a work around, but I really didn't expect that. Indeed Deflection limits is nice to have. Results and CAD Drafting Exports were a big reason I was wanting Bentley. I've renewed with Risa. Looking forward to another year. Thanks to everyone for sharing their comments.
  6. Yeah I've heard great things about Etabs, but looking at pricing it seems out of my range. Thanks for input!
  7. By pre-processor you mean? Have you used their latest version of Staad Pro? I'm curious because they just had a major change in the software as it was, I believe, a year ago. They now have 64bit processing for faster results. I've spent the last year really doing a lot of steel buildings, 1 story PEB and 2 story slab on deck, and am very curious about their detailing output of steel and concrete elements. Actually, Risa 3d is 1600/yr. and Risa Foundation is 1000/yr. Typically this is enough to survive, however, in trying to compare apples to apples then I include the entire Risa Suite as Bentley includes an entire suite with Structural Enterprise. Structural Enterprise has a steep purchase initial price of 11K, but the buyer gets a perpetual license for Staad Pro (Non Advanced) and either Ram Connections or a Foundation program. After the first year you have a maintenance fee of $2k and therefore are entitled to all upgrades, trainings etc.. So I did up to a 10yr projection and by the 4th year im paying more with Risa (and own nothing). Everyone has different feelings about subscription fees, but I just feel uncomfortable investing so much money over the years and ending up with nothing assuming I just stop the subscription.
  8. STAAD PRO vs RISA, any comments? Ive used Risa for years but i feel their subscriptions fees are too much. Considering STAAD and saving in the long run.
  9. Let the dust settle. If you have an engineering degree, I don't believe there is such a thing as NOT being able to pass. Your approach needs tweaking, from an emotional standpoint or technical. I don't know how the Mechanical PE is structured, but there is always a way. I took Dr. Tom's for civil. Didn't work for me either. But let me say this, when I mastered the material, and this was before I officially passed the exam. I went back to each binder I had previously studied and found that in fact the material was there. And it was just as clear as other current material I was using for the exam when I actually passed it. I'm not saying this is your case, but I'm saying chill out and just float in the water a bit. The answers are in front of you and it may be you just forgot to figure which ones are definitely NOT the right answer. When you do, the odds improve greatly in your favor. Hope this helps and I do not think you should give up. PE in my opinion is the ultimate status for design engineering. If its what you do, you'll get it.
  10. $123 , gifted to my parents and just made a copy to frame regularly at the office. Just thought id’e share.
  11. Aside from your book, could everything else be substituted with EET SE prep? In terms of study material, not Code References. I want to take lateral in Oct, but i have the SEAOC Seismic Manuals from 2012, dont have the PPI 16 HR book or the masonry book you mention. I know theres about an $700 difference between all of this and EET binder, but being i have all Structural Codes, i feel inclined to put my money towards the EET SE binder.
  12. Why? The cheapest ipad with pencil is so much better and probably about same price.
  13. I've noticed MEP's, Structural, and Civil always toss around these specs like hot potatoes actually. I guess in the end it will be about liability and not responsibility. However, I always like to add notes regarding penetrations. I cite ACI as much as I can and note recommendations on engineering judgement if necessary. The problem I've always seen is contractors trying to get away with not coring. They end up chiseling till they reach the other side. Don't get me wrong, sometimes that's the only method available. Anyways, yes I call out certain products and "or provide equal." I make sure all parties are involved when it comes to observations.
  14. Whenever this happens, and it happens often, I always specify an appropriate seal to the penetration on both sides of the vault. Take a look at products like Flexicraft or others to make sure the penetration is done well. Is the vault going to be below a water table? If so, I recommend using a hydrophilic seal around the pipe on each side of the vault (assuming no finishes are placed over the seal). You may also want to look into the Concrete Repair Manual by ACI as their should be good information on an appropriate approach. I wouldn't allow the concrete coring to stay exposed. Make sure the penetration is sealed. This is my take, others may have different opinions. Below is the ACI Clear Cover requirements by ACI 318-14.
×
×
  • Create New...