McEngr - Engineer Boards
Jump to content
Engineer Boards

McEngr

Members
  • Content Count

    1,065
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About McEngr

  • Rank
    Chief Engineer
  • Birthday 04/07/1977

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
    Structural
  • License
    PE
  • Calculator
    TI
  • Discipline
    Structural

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oregon
  • Interests
    5k, 10k, 13.1, 26.2, Taylor Guitars, College Football

Recent Profile Visitors

2,134 profile views
  1. I took the CA Seismic exam about 5 years ago. I also took the survey exam. I wanted to see how the exam format went, so I just took both exams without studying. Since I'm a structural guy, I passed the Seismic but failed the survey. Would CA accept my seismic exam if I took the survey exam this year?
  2. Performance-based design will be the only option for structural engineers 100 years from now. Half of what we do will be done with AI.
  3. I suggest they make the SE exam a condition for passing an ME or MS in civil engineering. Otherwise, it's meaningless. A masters+SE at final capstone course+2 additional years under a PE-structural or SE and then apply for the exam. NCEES and ABET need to make the scope of the license more clearly delineated with complexity and standard of education. For example: most civil engineers doing repetitive roadway design, for example, aren't nearly as skilled as high-rise structural engineers in a high-seismic region like San Fransisco Bay. I know some won't agree with me, but I think the MS or ME is in the future regardless of what we think.
  4. I'd be curious what system you guys use for SFRS in accordance with Table 12.2-1 of ASCE 7-10. I tell engineers to design with a cantilevered column system, let the braces stiffen up the system if desired to do so or if needed, but use an R=1.5 per G.6. Using an R=6.5 is incorrect, of course for light-frame construction.
  5. McEngr

    CONNECTORS

    This is a rather open-ended question. It all depends on whether the connection involves a side member of steel or wood, whether the species of lumber is DF, SP, HM, SPF, etc... In general, the diameter of a dowel-type fastener will increase the capacity of the connection, but there are also side, end, and space dimensions to consider.
  6. Having been an SE grader in the past, I think it's more important that you show your work clearly and write down the quick/necessary steps to get to the final answer if you don't have time. Just my 2 cents.
  7. Is the brace a tension-only member? If so, the drag load diagram is totally different. It collects all the way to the far end of the braced bay, drops immediately, then tapers back up.
  8. I took the kaplan course. I passed both exams first try. The courses may help eliminate some uncertainty. I remember a Dr. Tim something from South Carolina that was pretty good. I saw a bouyancy problem from that course that I never would've suspected on the exam. Guess what - the course had examples that were more closely related to the actual test than any book.
  9. While I wouldn't recommend this book for general practice (because it's too simplified), I would go with the ICC's Seismic & Wind Forces Structural Design Examples (3rd or 4th edition). I took the SE in 2012 and referenced concrete for quick and easy moment frame detailing guides. For steel braced frames, there's really nothing better than having experience detailing gusset plates for various projects. The ICC books are much better at providing real world problems over the PPI books. You can also look at the SEAOC Seismic Design Manuals. I have basically everything in my office one would need to pass the SE. The reason why I love the SE, studying, and practicing structural engineering is because it's always useful to stay up to date and keep up with the latest trends. Learning never ends. I'm currently learning (or re-learning) dynamic analysis - especially as it relates to nonlinear design via a time history analysis. I've been engineering since 2000, so I never feel I've arrived. FWIW...
  10. good discussion guys. that's what this forum is for!
  11. zaidfadhill, I think you need to take a step back and look at it from the purpose of chapter B. Your stiffeners are essentially with a KL/r <= 25 which is clearly written in section J4.4 as an Fcr=Fy. Thanks for stopping by.
  12. My personal opinion is that the SEAW course notes are not well organized. You would have to take several hand calculations from the likes of Degenkolb and KPFF engineers and compile them yourself from a CD-ROM. That was my experience a few years back... I personally would pour over the SEAOC Seismic Design Manuals, PCA Notes, AISC Seismic/Spec Manual, NDS 2012, and a good masonry book (Maybe from the Calif Nevada masonry association...?). And lastly, the SERM is pretty good. If you want to study for 300 hours or less, I would avoid the SEAW material unless you just need that extra edge for seismic design and don't do it often. The SEAW engineers are sharp, but it's also geared toward upper level coursework for a graduate school setting... My 2 cents.
  13. You're welcome! The fact you are asking the question means you're far along into the more advanced PE and SE topics. Good luck!
  14. D1.4a Required Strength ^^This is the section I'm referring to. You use the amplified seismic load, but this is a lower bound. In almost all cases for SDC D thru F, your post-buckling forces will exceed this. However, both should be checked. This comparison is obvious of you look at some of Rafael Sabelli's comments in the SEAOC Seis Des volumes. The cumulative effect of eccentric braces on multiple floors will obviously be many times more than the sum of story shears divided by the bay distance: F3+F2+F1 divided by L will be less than say 1.1RyFy of 3 braces at the base. If you look at part 1 of D1.4a, it says "load effect resulting from the analysis requirements..." - basically you need to check both. The point of my answer was to answer the overstrength question.
  15. AISC 341-10 essentially requires you to design all columns for overstrength now. At least for me, on the west coast, if I'm designing an AISC 341 system, I'm using overstrength columns... This was a big deal in '05 where you had to be careful. Now, it's more conservatively using the overstrength on almost all conditions. Obviously, you can still design to the maximum force delivered. I've tried to argue that a salty engineer could design on OCBF and work down the anchorage and column design requirements based on a 'tip-over' analysis for the foundation, but many (if not most) engineers want to stay conservative and not do that (at least in my office)...
×
×
  • Create New...