Need Old WWM Properties 4

• Sep 14, 2016

1
• #2

KootK

Structural

Oct 16, 2001

18,246

I'll throw in for SS, single wire, triangular mesh weighing 28 lb/ 100 sf per page four of this. Record my confidence level as 55%. What's the date on the drawings?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Sep 14, 2016

• Thread starter
• #3

kxa

Structural

Nov 16, 2005

207

Thanks. I actually visited that website and looked at the table for that period (1901-1910') but missed the weight column. I don't have the entire drawing. Only in bits and pieces. I figure the building must be about 90+/- years so what you referenced would make sense. Thanks again.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Sep 14, 2016

1
• #4

robyengIT

Mechanical

Dec 20, 2013

894

may be this can help

 

 http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=e9306f9c-1527-4f52-b710-c80658344b79&file=Historical-WWR-Facts.pdf

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Sep 14, 2016

• #5

CELinOttawa

Structural

Jan 8, 2014

1,456

I first thought 316 = Stainless Steel, but your era is all wrong for that and now believe my thought was an anachronism.

I vote for 316 being a mislead for our modern mind, and not anything "particular" in a building of this age. The 316 has something to do with physical dimensions and properties, not a type of steel.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Sep 14, 2016

2
• #6

Ingenuity

Structural

May 17, 2001

2,349

I agree with CELinOttawa - austentic 316 SS was not developed until about 1912 (the Germans and Brits claim joint fame).

Also, American Steel and Wire Co. catalog of early 1900 has the 316-28 as a noted Wire Wire Fabric STYLE, as follows:

Let me see if I can dig up the STYLE details from my reference and post details here.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Sep 14, 2016

• #7

KootK

Structural

Oct 16, 2001

18,246

Nicely done Ingenuity. OP will get much more capacity out of that. I'd love to know what 316 actually means in this context, if indeed it has a physical meaning.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Sep 14, 2016

• #8

Ingenuity

Structural

May 17, 2001

2,349

So digging 'deeper':

1. "316" is longitudinal wires at 3" c/c, transverse wires at 16" c/c.​

2. "28" is #2 gauge wire longitudinal, and #8 gauge wire transverse.​

So total it all together and you get: "316-28" = #2 gauge longitudinal wires at 3" c/c, #8 gauge transverse wires at 16" c/c.

For reference: #2 gauge is 0.2625" dia. and #8 gauge is 0.1620" dia.

REF: American Welded Wire Fabric by American Steel and Wire Co.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Sep 15, 2016

• Thread starter
• #9

kxa

Structural

Nov 16, 2005

207

Thank you Ingenuity. This really makes sense now because, according to the plans, the 6" thick floor (one way slab) was designed for 200 psf of LL.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Sep 15, 2016

• #10

Ingenuity

Structural

May 17, 2001

2,349

kxa,

You are welcome.

Curious - for your project framing (located in NY I assume), was the WWR profiled/draped over the spans to act as both TOP and BTM one-way slab reinforcing?

 

Upvote 0 Downvote

• Sep 15, 2016

• #11

Ingenuity

Structural

May 17, 2001

2,349

Profiled/draped like this?

Interesting equations in the same reference:

Assuming 8' spans, 3" average to depth of steel, with stone/gravel concrete, this equation gives you a 303 psf TOTAL load capacity.

 

Upvote 0 Downvote