Search results for query: *

Additionally, CIP last longer than precast (in my experience).

What I would do is design it per the DOT manual and then check it with whatever method you feel is appropriate. Follow the loads through the structure. If the boundry conditions are detailed such that you can transfer moments through them, then analyze the structure that way. If the details...

At my pervious job I spent about 80% of my time working on temporary construction structures. It was the best. It was hands on, problem solving. Worked hand in hand with the contractors, comming up with creative solutions for many different issues. Did things like shoring (some very very...

When needed, I have used the 100%-40%-40% rule. Based on the following in Reg Guide 1.92 For response spectrum analysis, in which each of the three spatial components are calculated separately, Chu, Amin, and Singh (Ref. 17) concluded that for an SCC subjected to the action of the three...

EricaB, I do not know of the top of my head where it is stated. I just know I had an action that was due today (2/17) to review all pending modifications for the use of CMTRs and create additional actions as req'd. Have you tried an OPEX search for CMTRs? If I get some time, I will do some...

JStephen is right. ASME Below the hook is the best reference I have found. Easy to follow, and very complete.

Be carefull. I see you handle says you are Nuclear. And I know that in the US, the NRC does not allow the use of CMTR's for justificaion of increased loading on a steel structure. They do however allow the use of concrete cylinder test results. But you have to be very particual with this...

Is it low, yes. Is it too low? Well if it is the best offer you have recieved, then it is not too low. But that is my opinion. What is your alternative? Take it, and keep looking!!!

Mike, that is very interesting that you were able to reduce the tie off loads to 2,000 lbs. You said "WE" did testing. Is this testing published such that is is available for reference for others to use in the design of tie off systems?

pg 16.1-100, eq J2-4 & j2-5. I normally take the (1.0 + sin^1.5x) as 1.0 conservatively. For flare bevel, the difficulty is often determning the effective throat.

Have you taken a look at ASME BTH? If my memory is correct it discusses spreaderbeams.

I have never testified, but I know a few engineers who have. They have all told me that if I ever am in the position where I will be testifying, that I should brief the attorney I am working for. Tell him what to ask. While attorneys are intellegent people, many of them do not understand...

As long as you are willing to start at the bottom of the pay scale, I don't think that there would be a big problem. Also, be prepared to take the FE and PE (SE), as these are almost always required for Civil Structurals.

Are you moving for money? Or for better conditions? Your initial statements were about the poor conditions, not poor pay. If you were looking for better pay, you will get better results by looking outside the company.

RISA. But as others mentioned, try the demo.

Rus In the end it is your call on how you design the structure. From your statement about the structure, it does not appear to have any (or minimal) life safety concerns. Therefore designing the structure to without utilizing the reduction factor would be a significant overdesign. Not bad...

DCALC - premitive, but does pretty good for non complex bridges.

From Earthquake Engineering Handbook (Chen & Scawthorn) The NEHRP Provisions are intended to provide a tiered series of performance capabilities for structures, depending on their intended occupancy and use. Under the NEHRP Provisions, each structure must be assigned to a seismic use group...

Sorry, the attachment didn't loadhttp://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=5c7b8465-9975-4c32-9947-c1d406954517&file=NEHPR_Provision_Summary.png

The best description that I have ever came across is attached. Basically we design for the MCE and that is beyond what a typical structure would normally see. http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=4f5bad7f-b436-4a9a-9020-c6906deee90f&file=NEHPR_Provision_Summary.png