Was flipping through Amazon and found this
its available for purchase starting September 18
its available for purchase starting September 18
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
New Salmon and Johnson Book
- Thread starter JaredS
- Start date
I heard recently that AISC hasn't gotten the Stability DG from the authors yet, so it'll be a while still.
The DAM coverage in S&J is anemic at best, unless it's covered somewhere besides Page 623-625 which is the only DAM entry in the Index.
On a positive note, the stability bracing coverage is non-trivial.
I'm teaching an advanced steel class in the spring and am going to use this book. I am somewhat disappointed in it, but it does show where a lot of things come from. Any thoughts on a better advanced textbook?
I actually got a very bad feelng about the text when I saw that they still include a lot of info about old-timey plastic design of frames--as if anybody does that nowadays. They needed to drop that and beef up some of the other areas.
The DAM coverage in S&J is anemic at best, unless it's covered somewhere besides Page 623-625 which is the only DAM entry in the Index.
On a positive note, the stability bracing coverage is non-trivial.
I'm teaching an advanced steel class in the spring and am going to use this book. I am somewhat disappointed in it, but it does show where a lot of things come from. Any thoughts on a better advanced textbook?
I actually got a very bad feelng about the text when I saw that they still include a lot of info about old-timey plastic design of frames--as if anybody does that nowadays. They needed to drop that and beef up some of the other areas.
civilperson
Structural
How do you check the old timey buildings if you are not teaching old timey methods of design?
LOL, good one civilperson. I think one could check 99% of older rigid frames using newer methods and be ok. All I'm saying is that the whole chapter could've been used better on "more current" topics. What are there, like 2 people using plastic analysis these days?! There are thousands trying to figure out the DAM.
haynewp, I agree with that conceptually also. Here's a question, though, for you and civilperson.
Say a university has two courses on steel design. What does a professor displace to make room for plastic design? We had plastic design in school and it took about 3 weeks.
Steel properties, tension members, columns, beams, beam-columns, connections, composite beams, frames (DAM and ELM, etc.), plate girders, thin-walled sections (Section E7 stuff)?
Given 3 classes, PD makes the cut IMO. Not many universities have that, though.
Say a university has two courses on steel design. What does a professor displace to make room for plastic design? We had plastic design in school and it took about 3 weeks.
Steel properties, tension members, columns, beams, beam-columns, connections, composite beams, frames (DAM and ELM, etc.), plate girders, thin-walled sections (Section E7 stuff)?
Given 3 classes, PD makes the cut IMO. Not many universities have that, though.
A little clarification:
I know the point of the thread isn't university course design, but it was implied (at least I read into it) that PD should be covered in school. Otherwise, how would _students_ understand it?
My other point is just that it's silly to blow off big current topics and then have a sizeable chapter on a topic nobody uses. It emphasizes that the book is a rehash of old stuff.
I know the point of the thread isn't university course design, but it was implied (at least I read into it) that PD should be covered in school. Otherwise, how would _students_ understand it?
My other point is just that it's silly to blow off big current topics and then have a sizeable chapter on a topic nobody uses. It emphasizes that the book is a rehash of old stuff.
civilperson
Structural
Torsion, seismic weak beams and plastic design are all in short supply by graduates with two steel courses.
youngstructural
Structural
Personally I think that Structural Engineering graduates are held back by being required to take Civil-specific courses in their undergrad...
I do not need to know how to size sewage pipes to know that I need to accomodate them. Even worse are required courses such as traffic, contaminated lands, etc.
Stripping the fluff would give room for the "meaty" content being removed. We need to accept that the average engineer is no longer a generalist; Computers have ensure that. The modern reality requires a modern approach to engineering training...
And for the record, plastic design is still in common use by many engineers... I require the two new grads I am training to check their computer output with a rigorous hand-method. If the sizes don't match, it has not yet been due to hand method error. Thus far each deviation has been due to a contraint, release, section size, node misallignment, etc, etc, etc. Readily used hand analysis methods (or FEM, CAE, etc, in Mathcad or Excel) are essential to a quality self-check of QA review of a job. That is why Salmon and Johnson should NEVER remove this section, even if a course adopting does not use it. Many of my best references are texts which were "over and above" for a course which assigned them.
Regards,
YS
B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...
I do not need to know how to size sewage pipes to know that I need to accomodate them. Even worse are required courses such as traffic, contaminated lands, etc.
Stripping the fluff would give room for the "meaty" content being removed. We need to accept that the average engineer is no longer a generalist; Computers have ensure that. The modern reality requires a modern approach to engineering training...
And for the record, plastic design is still in common use by many engineers... I require the two new grads I am training to check their computer output with a rigorous hand-method. If the sizes don't match, it has not yet been due to hand method error. Thus far each deviation has been due to a contraint, release, section size, node misallignment, etc, etc, etc. Readily used hand analysis methods (or FEM, CAE, etc, in Mathcad or Excel) are essential to a quality self-check of QA review of a job. That is why Salmon and Johnson should NEVER remove this section, even if a course adopting does not use it. Many of my best references are texts which were "over and above" for a course which assigned them.
Regards,
YS
B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...
Ive heard alot of this Salmon and Johnson book from these threads. Now Im am practising in Australia and I think our favorite (at least mine anyway) is Gorenc and Tinyou. Im just wondering if any Aussie Enginners use Salmon and Johnson in their structural design. Any comments would be appreciated.
"Personally I think that Structural Engineering graduates are held back by being required to take Civil-specific courses in their undergrad...
I do not need to know how to size sewage pipes to know that I need to accomodate them. Even worse are required courses such as traffic, contaminated lands, etc."
I totally agree with that! I was thinking a couple of years ago that I would've been A LOT better off if I would've been an Engineering Mechanics undergrad and then a structural engineering grad student. One of my plans at my current job is to try and develop a structural engineering specialty that lets the undergrads out of some of those fluff (for us) classes and take more mechanics and design classes.
You guys have inspired me to add at least an intro to PD to my spring course. I'll try to remember to report back as to how it works. I might just stop at beams, though, because I remember all that instantaneous center and crazy geometry taking a lot of time. I still have to have room for torsion and a slew of other topics.
I do not need to know how to size sewage pipes to know that I need to accomodate them. Even worse are required courses such as traffic, contaminated lands, etc."
I totally agree with that! I was thinking a couple of years ago that I would've been A LOT better off if I would've been an Engineering Mechanics undergrad and then a structural engineering grad student. One of my plans at my current job is to try and develop a structural engineering specialty that lets the undergrads out of some of those fluff (for us) classes and take more mechanics and design classes.
You guys have inspired me to add at least an intro to PD to my spring course. I'll try to remember to report back as to how it works. I might just stop at beams, though, because I remember all that instantaneous center and crazy geometry taking a lot of time. I still have to have room for torsion and a slew of other topics.
civeng80,
I have a copy of S & J 2nd Edition from 1980 which I still refer to from time to time, mostly for detailing issues and ideas. It is a good reference, but as the Australian steel standards evolved from the British rather than the American, there are a lot of different ways of doing things and a lot of differing provisions. And I imagine the new version is still not metric.
Interesting that the Aussie concrete code is much more closely aligned with the ACI code.
I have a copy of S & J 2nd Edition from 1980 which I still refer to from time to time, mostly for detailing issues and ideas. It is a good reference, but as the Australian steel standards evolved from the British rather than the American, there are a lot of different ways of doing things and a lot of differing provisions. And I imagine the new version is still not metric.
Interesting that the Aussie concrete code is much more closely aligned with the ACI code.
Thanks Hokie66
I have a copy of Brezler Lin and Scalzi which I use occasionally for ideas, its not bad (maybe a bit outdated now) so I think I know where your coming from. S & J seems a pretty expensive book too, you think the cost would outweigh the benefits for building structures at least?
I have a copy of Brezler Lin and Scalzi which I use occasionally for ideas, its not bad (maybe a bit outdated now) so I think I know where your coming from. S & J seems a pretty expensive book too, you think the cost would outweigh the benefits for building structures at least?
I did receive my copy this morning. I must admit, I am extremely disappointed in the whole 3 pages devoted to the DAM. I'll let you know more about the rest as I have time to look it over.
youngstructural-
Does your firm have the time to allow young engineers to check things by hand? I would love to take the time to do some critical beam deflections with castigliano's method or maybe a combined footing using a beam on elastic foundation, but I would never have the time to sit and do it by hand. I try to do as much as I can by hand, but I know I would never have the time to do the really involved stuff. Kudos to your company for allowing you to do that! Truth be told, however, I might be a little intimidated having to check a computer output for a building's lateral force distribution when the LFRS is 20 moment frames (distribution issues) of varying member sizes (stiffness issues) with all of the ridiculous load combinations.
youngstructural-
Does your firm have the time to allow young engineers to check things by hand? I would love to take the time to do some critical beam deflections with castigliano's method or maybe a combined footing using a beam on elastic foundation, but I would never have the time to sit and do it by hand. I try to do as much as I can by hand, but I know I would never have the time to do the really involved stuff. Kudos to your company for allowing you to do that! Truth be told, however, I might be a little intimidated having to check a computer output for a building's lateral force distribution when the LFRS is 20 moment frames (distribution issues) of varying member sizes (stiffness issues) with all of the ridiculous load combinations.
"Truth be told, however, I might be a little intimidated having to check a computer output for a building's lateral force distribution when the LFRS is 20 moment frames (distribution issues) of varying member sizes (stiffness issues) with all of the ridiculous load combinations."
StrlEIT, from this, it sounds like you're looking to check the wrong kinds of things. Those wouldn't be realistic anywhere.
As a counter-example, you can make sure your frame analysis program is coming up with reasonable 2nd-order amplifications by approximately calculating B2, right? That's a matter of minutes for a story.
As another example, you can check phiMn coming out of a program by peeking at the AISC beam response curves (Table 3-10?--don't have my Manual here).
You can also use the simple equations in AISC DG11 Ch 3 to estimate your building's period for comparison w/ program output -- takes just a few minutes and this has been very close every time I've done it.
Just sneak these kinds of checks in on scrap paper and toss them. Nobody will even notice. I don't think many folks crank out pages of formal manual calcs on a daily basis to check programs.
Also, as for PD helping to check computer output: How do you guys do that? PD only gives the ultimate collapse load. Unless you're doing a material and geometric nonlinear frame analysis, your program isn't going to find the collapse load. Someone please enlighten me.
StrlEIT, from this, it sounds like you're looking to check the wrong kinds of things. Those wouldn't be realistic anywhere.
As a counter-example, you can make sure your frame analysis program is coming up with reasonable 2nd-order amplifications by approximately calculating B2, right? That's a matter of minutes for a story.
As another example, you can check phiMn coming out of a program by peeking at the AISC beam response curves (Table 3-10?--don't have my Manual here).
You can also use the simple equations in AISC DG11 Ch 3 to estimate your building's period for comparison w/ program output -- takes just a few minutes and this has been very close every time I've done it.
Just sneak these kinds of checks in on scrap paper and toss them. Nobody will even notice. I don't think many folks crank out pages of formal manual calcs on a daily basis to check programs.
Also, as for PD helping to check computer output: How do you guys do that? PD only gives the ultimate collapse load. Unless you're doing a material and geometric nonlinear frame analysis, your program isn't going to find the collapse load. Someone please enlighten me.
Fair enough. I often do back of the envelope type stuff to check moment capacities and if the program is applying the loads properly and many critical deflection locations.
Youngstructural's post said "rigorous hand method..." I assumed it was much more involved than what we just talked about.
Youngstructural's post said "rigorous hand method..." I assumed it was much more involved than what we just talked about.
youngstructural
Structural
Good Morning All;
StructuralEIT: You asked if the firm has the time to permit checking etc. Well, no, unfortunately, not really. HOWEVER, that said, I have found that with fresh grads, making them go through a full hand-check catches the errors that they inevitably make prior to the Drafties getting the wrong stuff drawn, my check finding the error, and embarrassing the intern and stressing the whole team with a rushed re-work.
I would argue that until an engineer has a minimum of three years experience, as well as feels truly comfortable with a given type of design (which in combination may take many, many years), hand checks are indispensable. Just to give you an idea, I am now at five years experience and have worked on some fairly major projects (hospitals, firehalls, schools, historic structures, 65000 seat stadium), but ALL of my work is back-checked and re-checked.
I have yet to have an error caught by an external reviewer or council (knocks on wood), but have caught plenty of my own errors, and had errors caught by our in-house staff. I approach reviewing my own work and that of my colleagues with a simple, yet not rigid, approach: If you haven't found any errors, you haven't reviewed long enough.
As for my "rigorous hand methods" statement, I did mean it. I am talking about relative rigidity checks for the proportion of seismic load walls take, simple span moment envelopes up-shifted with regard to proportionate end-fixity to check computer outputs, etc, etc.
Regards,
YS
B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...
StructuralEIT: You asked if the firm has the time to permit checking etc. Well, no, unfortunately, not really. HOWEVER, that said, I have found that with fresh grads, making them go through a full hand-check catches the errors that they inevitably make prior to the Drafties getting the wrong stuff drawn, my check finding the error, and embarrassing the intern and stressing the whole team with a rushed re-work.
I would argue that until an engineer has a minimum of three years experience, as well as feels truly comfortable with a given type of design (which in combination may take many, many years), hand checks are indispensable. Just to give you an idea, I am now at five years experience and have worked on some fairly major projects (hospitals, firehalls, schools, historic structures, 65000 seat stadium), but ALL of my work is back-checked and re-checked.
I have yet to have an error caught by an external reviewer or council (knocks on wood), but have caught plenty of my own errors, and had errors caught by our in-house staff. I approach reviewing my own work and that of my colleagues with a simple, yet not rigid, approach: If you haven't found any errors, you haven't reviewed long enough.
As for my "rigorous hand methods" statement, I did mean it. I am talking about relative rigidity checks for the proportion of seismic load walls take, simple span moment envelopes up-shifted with regard to proportionate end-fixity to check computer outputs, etc, etc.
Regards,
YS
B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...
civeng80,
I wouldn't buy S&J if you only intend working in Australia or to Australian Standards. But if you ever have to work to US AISC standards, then it is probably essential. My 1980 version has 27.50 in pencil inside the front cover, and that was a lot then, so it has never been cheap. 1007 pages, though.
I wouldn't buy S&J if you only intend working in Australia or to Australian Standards. But if you ever have to work to US AISC standards, then it is probably essential. My 1980 version has 27.50 in pencil inside the front cover, and that was a lot then, so it has never been cheap. 1007 pages, though.
The crap university I went to has only one steel and one concrete course. No masonry or timber at all, although some of the basic topics related to these materials were covered in a structural analysis course. I always resented having to take nonstructural courses, but thats almost all that was ever offered.
Whilst I agree that subjects like Physics are fundamental for stuctural engineers, subjects such as applied Thermodynamics, dynamics of machines, electronic engineering which I had to do as part of my civil engineering course were just a waste of time. It would have been much more productive to at least do more business related subjects which I did later on at a postgraduate level.
I think now civil/ structural engineering is more the way I would have liked it to be. Fluid mechanics was also a subject that gave me a hard time, while structures was more to my liking and I would have been happy to do more both in theory and practice.
I think now civil/ structural engineering is more the way I would have liked it to be. Fluid mechanics was also a subject that gave me a hard time, while structures was more to my liking and I would have been happy to do more both in theory and practice.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question
