Search results

There is little difference in the wind provisions. They are actually easier in ASCE 7-10 with the simplified all heights method. It was developed by Ed Huston and a team of wind experts in Seattle if my memory serves. I think you'll find 1 lateral wind problem in the the afternoon and 3...

ASCE 7-10 section 7.4.5 - doesn't always apply of course...

There once was a provision to double the roof snow (or flat snow?) on roof overhangs. Can someone point me to the code section? It's been a while since someone pressed me on the issue. I believe it was fairly obvious in IBC 2006, but things change so much that I can't remember... Possible...

good luck pirate! studying those example problems will go a long, long way with your studying

You need to buy the new version - because you are asking it shows that you haven't studied. :) AISC will likely allow you to trade in your earlier release for a later one if you call them.

CAPLS: thank you for the info!

Obviously, option 2 and 3 are only the same if no parapet is given.

You'll likely be quizzed on method 2.

Welp, I hope you're right. It seems pretty tough from what I hear. I don't even know where to begin studying...

Can anyone recommend a CA Civil Survey Review Course for someone that has never performed a survey in his/her life? I am an SE looking to take the survey exam in the near future. Any recommendations and things to avoid etc would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

When I took the exam, in a general sense, I felt that the gravity afternoon was just as tough as the lateral afternoon. Nonetheless, I passed both with the passing rates being right about the same for both afternoons (approx. 35-40% at that cycle).

I would recommend using them for PRELIM design only. I think you should be prepared to demonstrate knowledge, not look up a table. If you can perform the interaction diagram by hand (Z=0,-2,-4,etc), you'll do fine. By the way, Z = multiplier x steel strain.

Rafael Sabelli is an outstanding presenter and is very knowledgeable in steel seismic design. I think he's the best I've ever witnessed. You might think he's dry, but if you're patient you'll discover he is just an outstanding engineer.

My limited answer would be that seismic liquefaction would affect any type of grading plan or slope stability problem. This is just the first thing that came to mind. I think the requirements to be certified (say in Structural), that the obtuse knowledge isn't necessary. I think it's a good...

Can anyone tell me why a structural engineer would need to be qualified in surveying in order to be a practicing structural engineer? I could rant, but it's Friday. And I have a rule about Fridays...

ptatoe... why would he not need this book? Also, the book references the ASCE 7-05, which is the final denominator of seismic design (in case you didn't know). Of course, I'm not even studying for the seismic stuff. I've been told it's rather easy, and I do seismic daily.

The way in which the ap and Rp is determined is a little confusing. I believe the last sentence of table 13.6-1 explains the mystery away (at least for me). If you can't verify the 1/4" clearance, then you can assume Fp, which would make the ratio of ap/Rp=1.0. The problem does explain that...

Perhaps to expound on kevo's comments, think of the walls parallel with the direction of force as having its own inertia and thereby not inducing (or needing) help from the diaphragm. It's essentially a stiffness problem, not a tributary problem.

Mark - I've encountered that those additional loads at the panel points are not concurrently applied. They are only applied like an influence line for a bridge, but with increments of the panel point distance. Also, the reporting in the vulcraft calculations does not include these panel point...

Almost always, there is an A36 rod that is reinforced for only a portion of the top chord unless the roof top unit is very, very large, then it may have to be post-tensioned somehow.