ConstructionCalc Forums » Recent Posts

ConstructionCalc Forums » Recent Posts http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Where Builders, Architects, Engineers, and Code Officials Meet en-US Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:11:05 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 <![CDATA[Search]]> q http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/search.php Tim Garrison on "SAGGING 2ND STORY FLOOR" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/sagging-2nd-story-floor#post-38 Thu, 05 Aug 2010 07:36:45 +0000 Tim Garrison 38@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ The best is to add a beam or beams to support the overspanned joists. Doing so, however, requires that the beam(s) be supported on a foundation, either new or existing. The other option is to add more joists, which requires tearing into the ceiling. I suggest having an experienced local engineer take a look. Usually they're good at giving you a few options and an idea of cost. Lee on "SAGGING 2ND STORY FLOOR" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/sagging-2nd-story-floor#post-37 Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:49:57 +0000 Lee 37@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ I could really use some advice. My home is 36 years old and the 2nd story floor is sagging in an area approx. 20 feet acrossed. It spans the master bedroom at the end where the doors enter the master bath and the hallway. What is the best fix? I do not notice any sagging on the ground floor. I suspect the floor joist is in some way needing help. Where should I start? I plan carpet replacement soon and that would be an opportune time to pull subfloor and inspect joist. Please offer some suggestions. Thanks in advance. Tim Garrison on "Builder's Engineer Joins LeanBuilding Blitz Team" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/builders-engineer-joins-leanbuilding-blitz-team#post-36 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:28:30 +0000 Tim Garrison 36@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ If you've read Builder Magazine or Professional Builder Magazine lately, you've seen <a href="http://www.truen.com/">Scott Sedam's</a> handiwork. He's written many articles on lean and green building. Intrigued, I dropped him an email asking if he'd be interested in taking a look at my latest book, GREEN FRAMING - AN ADVANCED FRAMING HOW-TO GUIDE. My timing was good, Scott just happened to be in need of an engineer to help with his Lean BuildingBlitz process. LeanBuilding Blitz is where Scott's team visits a builder for several days and thoroughly examines their operations, scouring for inefficiency. Special attention is given to suppliers and trades, an aspect unique to this process. Finding money-leaking inefficiency is never difficult. Construction companies grow and morph by adapting to daily emergencies. You don’t fix things if they’re not broken, right? Only problems beget solutions. But those solutions rarely are the most efficient – they’re an answer to a screaming need, a finger in the leaking dike. Over the years all of these band-aid fixes rack up huge inefficiencies and costs. In good times, a company can get by. But when the going gets tough, like right now, only super-cash-rich or super-streamlined companies survive. And if you’re to excel, you’d better have your ducks in a row, a row straighter than your competetion’s. Which is exactly what LeanBuilding Blitz is all about. I’ll be working with a Kentucky builder this month and a Texas builder next and I can’t wait! Lean and green is a core value of mine and has been my entire professional life. If you’d like to learn more about this please <a href="http://www.constructioncalc.com/contact_us.php">contact me</a> or <a href="http://www.truen.com/contact_true_north.html">Scott Sedam.</a> Tim Garrison on "The 2009 IRC - An Engineer's Opinion" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/the-2009-irc-an-engineers-opinion#post-35 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:12:06 +0000 Tim Garrison 35@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ I attended a 3-hour IRC (International Residential Code) update class yesterday. The IRC is, in my opinion, a classic example of shooting yourself in the foot. I’ve written about the IRC before (“When Is Engineering Required Per the 2003 IRC?” blog, <a href="http://www.constructioncalc.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.constructioncalc.com</a>). I’ll spare you the chore of clicking around to find that by reprinting the interesting points here: “I think the code folks have gone overboard in their efforts to eliminate engineering of the simpler things. In fact, I believe those very efforts are the ones causing so much confusion. There are simply too many ways to build a house to say this way doesn’t need engineering but that way does. Trying to make that distinction—that line in the sand between shall be engineered and doesn’t have to be is what this hullabaloo is all about. I, no stranger to building codes, spent more than a day researching the International Residential Code (IRC) (read: “groping desperately to unravel a hopelessly tangled pile of kite string”) and still am not sure I’ve got this issue completely nailed down. The following, I think, begins to answer the question. I’ve included code references in case some Very Brave Person wants to investigate further.” ... and then my conclusion: “Now for the solution. I think the code folks ran awry when they invented prescriptive design. Most people aren’t even aware that prescriptive design violates most state’s engineering law, which paraphrased, states that engineering shall be performed only by engineers (also architects in some states). Deciding what beams or shear walls to use is engineering. Period. I don’t care what IRC tables tell you, still, it is engineering. Span tables are a classic example. Say you’ve got a 16 foot garage door header that you size using an IRC span table but fail to notice the footnote that says ‘only applicable to uniform distributed loads’. Most non-engineers don’t even know what this means and won’t care that a girder truss is bringing a huge point load to the mid-span of their header, making it grossly undersized. I prefer the good old days when the code simply described minimum standards and it was up to designers and code officials to decide when engineering was needed and when not. This required some basic understanding of the code and common sense. I think today’s codes strive extravagantly to eliminate any possibility of someone actually engaging their brain and using common sense. I’m a big fan of common sense. You see, as soon as you try to define things so precisely, so exactly, that common sense is no longer needed, two things happen: 1) Your descriptions become so dense and perplexing, no one can understand them; and 2) People disengage their brains, throwing any attempt at common sense out the window.” All that was about the 2003 IRC. Now, two code cycles later, we’re facing the 2009. Do you think the code writers paid any attention to me when they concocted this new and improved quagmire? No, they did not. Rather than paring down and streamlining, they packed in yet more gobbledygook. Take for example the wind and earthquake design sections. The new code greatly expanded these with the intent, I think, to allow all comers to perform lateral analysis and design. I’m in the structural software business and here’s the feedback I get most often: “Tim, I love your programs because they’re so easy to use. Why don’t you produce one for lateral design? You’d be rich!” My answer today is the same as it’s been for 15 years: “Becoming rich would be fine, however, lateral design is just too complicated. There’s too much judgment involved. To get it right you’d spend more time inputting than if you just did it longhand.” Yesterday’s instructor, Tim DeVries, a friend and top notch building official, did a fantastic job. He devoted nearly half of the class to the lateral design sections, which is saying something considering all the changes to the energy code, ingress / egress, and other sections. And at the end I’m pretty sure most attendees were significantly befuddled about lateral design. Not because they’re dense or Tim did a poor job, no, quite the contrary, because it’s just too darned complex. The intent of the IRC is to bypass professional architects and engineers - to allow anyone to design their own residential structure using prescriptive methods. Actually, I’m good with that premise. I’m all for empowerment. However, I strongly believe that wind and earthquake design does not lend itself to prescriptive methods. The alternative is to hire an engineer who, if he is worth his salt, will not shoot himself in the foot with the IRC but instead use the IBC (International Building Code) and thereby save the project a lot of money in the long run. As I said previously, any one-size-fits-all prescriptive standard will, by necessity, be overly conservative. In these lean and green times, who can afford that? Tim Garrison on "Allowable Fb reduction based on unbraced Length" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/allowable-fb-reduction-based-on-unbraced-length#post-34 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:13:19 +0000 Tim Garrison 34@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ ProBeam assumes a short Lu (unbraced length) such that buckling of the compression "flange" is not an issue. There is no feature at this time to make an analysis with a long Lu. That's a good feature for us to add for the next version. In the meantime if you have a long Lu, say greater than 6', the answer ProBeam gives will not be accurate, and could be dangerous. In such case you can add lateral bracing to the compression "flange" thus shortening the Lu, or use a stouter member - especially one more resistant to weak-axis bending. Tim Garrison on "Working with non-standard strcutural members" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/working-with-non-standard-strcutural-members#post-33 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:04:01 +0000 Tim Garrison 33@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ You can use ProBeam v4 to analyze a bending member of any geometry or material. But if it's not in the on-board libray you must know or closely estimate the section properties and material strength properties. You do this via the Custom Member feature. Access it via the Miscellaneous dropdown at the top of screen or via the Final Member dropdown in Part 4. Once that section is unhidden (bottom of Part 3) the input cells and help tips are shown. Salty on "Allowable Fb reduction based on unbraced Length" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/allowable-fb-reduction-based-on-unbraced-length#post-32 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:23:56 +0000 Salty 32@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ I don't see maximum allowable Lu (obviously I can get this from AISC manual). Is there any way to calculate Fb using a Lu greater than max allowable Lu to obtain full Fb? Salty on "Working with non-standard strcutural members" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/working-with-non-standard-strcutural-members#post-31 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:22:14 +0000 Salty 31@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ I have an unusual existing structural I beam member, measuring 3.25" flange width x 10" deep x 1/4" web that I cannot find in AISC old or new. (Pre-fab house about 35 to 40 years old) Is there any way to input structural properties rather than using the canned data in your program? Tim Garrison on "Advice for young engineers" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/advice-for-young-engineers#post-30 Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:31:28 +0000 Tim Garrison 30@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Good morning Jon, I am surprised that you're finding structural engineering is tough to get in to. Well, actually, right now with the recession, any construction-related field might be hard. But in normal times, good structural engineer trainees should be in demand. More so, I think, than civil engineering trainees (I've hired both over the years.) My advice is to apply to companies with a good reputation that do the kind of work you're interested in. The most important thing for you is to work under the direction of an old pro or pros. What you learned is school doesn't mean much compared to what you'll learn in practice. It wouldn't hurt to take seminars and continuing education courses. However, if money is tight, I wouldn't bother. You need real experience first and foremost. It would help you tremendously to actually work in the field building things. Yes, strap on a tool belt and get dirty. That's how I started and it is THE thing that sets me apart from my competition. I know how a building's parts and pieces go together because I built it. I know how to weld, operate heavy equipment, run any power tool well, etc. So when I design in my office, in my mind I'm building it. I put myself in the shoes of the guy in the field, making sure I spec things that can be constructed in a certain order, using industry-standard tools. I feel so strongly about this, I think it should be a requirement of all engineering graduates to have at least 3-years construction experience. Hope that helps. Good luck! jziv on "Advice for young engineers" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/advice-for-young-engineers#post-29 Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:15:52 +0000 jziv 29@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Tim, or others who would like to weigh in- I have enjoyed this website, and the software seems very useful. Tim seems to have harnessed a lot of practical knowledge with his engineering background - a good blend of knowledge that I think all engineers should have. I would like to ask if you have any advice for a young engineer - I am almost 2 years into a professional engineering career after obtaining a B.S. in civil engineering. I am doing a lot of site design and drafting, but I feel like I need a more specialized career path, one that includes engineering theory and practical application. My question is what type of position should a young engineer seek employment at to build that good blend of experience doing structural design. Any other opinions regarding training, education or experience building would be appreciated also. Structural engineering seems to be a very specialized field and a hard one to get your feet wet in. Any advice? -Jon in Cleveland Tim Garrison on "Over-Engineer Kills Project" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/over-engineer-kills-project#post-28 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:13:52 +0000 Tim Garrison 28@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ I got a call recently from Stylus R. Ofom, a sales rep for a brand of Insulated Concrete Forms (ICF). “Tim,” he carped, “I’ve got a new high-end home project in San Francisco that an engineer WAY overdesigned. This guy spec’d so much rebar, there’s no room left for the concrete. No contractor will bid the job – and that’s saying something in these tough times. He’s killed the project! I’d call the joker but I’m so hacked right now I’d probably say something I shouldn’t. And besides, you know how certain engineers can never be wrong? I’m in a bad way here. Would you be interested in re-engineering this thing?” Red lights and flags went up in my head. I’ve been down this road before. Were I to say yes, here’s what would likely happen. I’d redo the job and find that the other engineer didn’t know what he was doing. Maybe he’s some government paper pusher moonlighting – it happens all the time. Anyway, when he gets wind that my design used less than half the rebar and 2/3 the concrete, to save face, he attacks me. Now I have to defend my design to the State Board, or, I have to report him to the State Board for practicing outside his area of expertise (it’s law, by the way, that a licensed engineer must rat out any other engineer who violates the state’s ethics rules.) On the other hand, it really gripes me to hear of engineers overdesigning. Not only is it anti-green, it’s hard on projects and gives our profession a black eye. “Tell you what, Sty,” I said. “I’ll look into it for you. What’s this guy’s name and who is the architect?” “The engineer’s name is Tomache Steele and the architect is Cary Granite. Here are their phone numbers.” I called the architect first. After a few pleasantries, I said, “I don’t know if I can help or not, Cary, but the first step is for me to look at the plans. Can you email them over please?” “No problem,” he said. “I’ll also pdf you the calcs. Tomache’s contact information is there but good luck talking to him. It usually takes a few days to get a call back.” “So you’ve worked with him before?” “Yes, several times. Mostly because his fees are low. Someday I’ll learn my lesson though and stop using him. Not only are his designs over-engineered, he’s a terrible communicator, and he’s always several weeks late. Grrrr.” “Roger that. I’ll see what I can do.” “How soon can you look at this?” he said. “We’re just about through plan review with the city and we’re thinking to take the revised design back to them after we have a permit in hand.” “My schedule is pretty open,” I said. “I’ll get back to you as soon as I know something.” The plans popped up on my computer a few minutes later. I’ve engineered many concrete projects over the years, a dozen or more being ICF, and I have never seen such flagrant overkill. Truly, there was at least double the rebar needed and the walls could have been two inches thinner. Greenhorn, I thought. He’s probably some bureaucrat with no real-world experience locked in a sea of cubicles in some non-descript low-rise. Then I looked at the calcs. First, the letterhead identified a small, local private engineering firm. So much for my bureaucrat-in-a-cubicle theory. Second, I was shocked to see “S.E.” under Tomache’s name. This guy is a full-blown structural engineer! If you’re unfamiliar with the title, it means he has not only taken and passed his professional engineer’s license exam, he’s also taken and passed a 2nd exam, a two-day brain buster akin to the bar exam for lawyers. Very few who take it pass it. In fact, only a select few qualify to take the S.E. Having the letters “S.E.” behind your name is a big deal – it places you in elite company among engineers. The calcs themselves were beyond professional, 100% typed – nothing by hand, with computer-generated sketches of every structural element. And thorough? Holy smokes, the guy took more pages just coming up with one seismic force than some engineers take designing an entire building. Top it all off with the fact that the local jurisdiction is the City of San Francisco. Which, last time I did a project there, had an S.E. or two on staff. So Tomache’s calcs have likely already been reviewed by one of his brethren, who would likely frown on a lowly P.E. (me) correcting them. This was not at all what I had anticipated. What to do? What would you do? Here’s what I did. I picked up the phone and called Tomache. In my way of thinking, the best possible outcome would be for him to recognize his overly conservative design and back it down some. There is a name for that, actually, it’s called “value engineering.” And it’s pretty common. In fact certain consultants make their living at it – they’re essentially hired guns who analyze projects and recommend alternate methods to save money. My challenge was to do precisely that without offending. It took three days and several attempts, but finally Tomache called me back. The conversation went better than I expected. He spent several minutes defensively explaining his rationale for all that rebar, particularly in the two walls with all the windows. I listened patiently then made a few calm suggestions which he conceded were worth revisiting, and that possibly he’d been a bit conservative. In the end, his redesign was not as efficient as if another engineer had done it. Still too much concrete and steel, in my opinion. But no one got sued, contractors will bid it, and it will be built. Someday the owners will occupy their nice new ICF home, blissfully ignorant of all this behind-the-scenes drama and that they paid quite a bit more than they should have. Was it the best possible outcome? Maybe. This, for the most part true, tale illuminates several takeaways worth restating: * You generally get what you pay for. * Bad design will cost far more in construction than you saved up front in fees. * A person’s credentials don’t always equate to competence. * Engineers are not created equally. Give any two the same set of plans and they’ll produce two very different designs. This, regardless of the fact that both engineers are bound by the same code. * Sometimes the best solution is not a redo by someone else. Try communication first, always. * Value engineering can be a very good idea. Even if it costs money. Many times the savings realized more than cover the cost, plus it puts another set of qualified eyes on the project and that’s never a bad thing. What about me – how did I make out? Well, monetarily, I didn’t. But I’m okay eating a couple hours to help a distressed project. Also there’s the hope that this architect and sales rep will remember me before hiring Tomache next time. I call it goodwill marketing. Tim Garrison on "wood trusses" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/wood-trusses#post-27 Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:22:11 +0000 Tim Garrison 27@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Actually, there is a strength difference between "flat use" and regular on edge orientation, though rather small. It only applies to bending (not shear or deflection) and varies depending on the member size. For 2x4 it's 10%. I still think floor trusses are built "flat" to limit their depth. tim on "wood trusses" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/wood-trusses#post-26 Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:07:58 +0000 tim 26@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Tim, thanks for your opinion. But I am confused when you say there is no difference from a structural standpoint, which would be like saying that lumber on the flat is as strong as lumber on edge, or that truss plate purchase on lumber edges is as strong as on lumber faces. Tim Garrison on "wood trusses" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/wood-trusses#post-25 Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:36:22 +0000 Tim Garrison 25@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Hello Tim, My opinion is that height is an important factor. Architects usually don't care if a roof truss is 6' tall or 7'. But floors are generally kept to about a foot tall. Using a tall orientation of 2x's in a floor truss adds about half a foot, which is significant. If there's another reason I don't know what it would be. From a structural standpoint, it makes no difference. tim on "wood trusses" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/wood-trusses#post-24 Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:24:59 +0000 tim 24@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Hi Tim, I was wondering if you could tell me why wood floor trusses are built "on the flat", while roof trusses are built "on edge"? Why should there be any difference? Mars on "Minimum horizontal reinforcement in retaining walls?" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/minimum-horizontal-reinforcement-in-retaining-walls#post-23 Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:05:14 +0000 Mars 23@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Maybe the question is so absurd it is difficult to understand. (also m English isn’t perfect) I only wanted some second oppinion to show my clients representative and his colleges (all Egyptians) how wrong they are. They are convinced that for a wall with a thickness of more than 10 in. where it then is required to have two layers, that each of those layers minimum reinforcement is 0.0020 times the gross area. They are equally convinced the same principle applies for slabs and footings. And also insist that according to ACI all slabs thicker than 160 mm always have to have reinforcement in both top and bottom. I have not been able to find anything supporting that statement. Tim Garrison on "Minimum horizontal reinforcement in retaining walls?" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/minimum-horizontal-reinforcement-in-retaining-walls#post-22 Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:28:39 +0000 Tim Garrison 22@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ I'm not sure I understand your question but if it's how much reinforcement per layer, that is addressed in 14.3.4 (clouded section above). The sections just above that specifiy the minimum reinforcement in each direction. Of course this section 14 only pertains to walls. Mars on "Minimum horizontal reinforcement in retaining walls?" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/minimum-horizontal-reinforcement-in-retaining-walls#post-21 Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:15:11 +0000 Mars 21@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Thanks Tim, But what about the principle question, which was the real issue. For a wall or a slab with outer and inner or top and bottom reinforcement, is my understanding that minimum reinforcemnt requierment set by 14.3 or 7.12 is the total reinforcement in the section and not per side, if for one or another reaseon section is with two layers? Tim Garrison on "Minimum horizontal reinforcement in retaining walls?" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/minimum-horizontal-reinforcement-in-retaining-walls#post-20 Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:36:42 +0000 Tim Garrison 20@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Great question. My read of the code is that two layers in both directions are required, EXCEPT with basement walls. Here is the page from ACI 318 on the topic. <img src="http://imgur.com/yWdvQ.jpg"> So I think for your one-way basement wall, one layer of horizontal bar is okay. I also find it interesting that ACI requires steel at 18" OC, each direction (14.3.5) as a minimum in any wall, when the IBC allows unreinforced walls. Go figure. Mars on "Minimum horizontal reinforcement in retaining walls?" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/minimum-horizontal-reinforcement-in-retaining-walls#post-19 Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:23:20 +0000 Mars 19@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ We have as often is thae case with retaining basement walls them designed as one way and in our case 300 mm (11.8 in.) thick. And the vertical reinforcement which is in bot outer and inner face are we and our client in agreement about. Discussion is requiered horizontal reinforcement. Which for walls acording to ACI should be minimum 0.0020 of the gross concrete area. Now client insist that amount of vertical reinforcement should then be applied in both outer and inner layer. And I say the 0.0020 is for the whole section so when placed in inner and outer layers only 0.0010 times gross area is requiered in each face. Also then the same would apply for one way slabs only that there the ratio is 0.0018. Of course in both cases limitations for maximum rebar spacing. Am I correct? Tim Garrison on "PM - what's that?" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/pm-whats-that#post-18 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:36:24 +0000 Tim Garrison 18@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ PM means Personal Message, which is a personal email between you and another memeber of this forum. Tim Garrison on "Getting email notifications when someone replies to your post" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/getting-email-notifications-when-someone-replies-to-your-post#post-17 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:21:01 +0000 Tim Garrison 17@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ If you want to automatically receive an email when someone makes a post to a topic of interest to you: 1. Go to your Profile by clicking your name in the upper left of the screen (after "Welcome".) 2. Edit. Click the Edit button, upper right. 3. Scroll down to Favorite Notification. Make sure Activate is checked. You should only have to do this once. 4. Scroll down and Update Profile. 5. When you open up a topic, at the top, just below the topic's title, click "Add this topic to your favorites" BMD on "Twitters and Forums and Blogs, Oh My!" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/twitters-and-forums-and-blogs-oh-my#post-16 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:51:36 +0000 BMD 16@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ While the construction industry in on hold maybe I should look into this. Tim Garrison on "Twitters and Forums and Blogs, Oh My!" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/twitters-and-forums-and-blogs-oh-my#post-15 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:28:42 +0000 Tim Garrison 15@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ That is an unbelievably good question. The person with the answer holds a best seller in his hands. BMD on "Twitters and Forums and Blogs, Oh My!" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/twitters-and-forums-and-blogs-oh-my#post-14 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:04:53 +0000 BMD 14@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Are you aware of any publications that provide statistics on how "successful" different types of marketing are? Something along the lines of a cost/benefit ratio would be interesting, especially if it's broken down by business focus and geographical region. Tim Garrison on "Twitters and Forums and Blogs, Oh My!" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/twitters-and-forums-and-blogs-oh-my#post-13 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:17:51 +0000 Tim Garrison 13@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Yeah, I'd like to have back all of the money I've wasted on misguided ads too. It's interesting that marketing isn't required at any level of school. Yet, marketing is every bit as important as whatever else it is you're studying. BMD on "Twitters and Forums and Blogs, Oh My!" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/twitters-and-forums-and-blogs-oh-my#post-12 Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:17:29 +0000 BMD 12@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ I enjoyed the latest article. Where and how to spend advertising money efficiently and effectively has long been a mystery to me. We advertise primarily in the phone books. The fact that there are 2 of them now basically doubled our advertising expense to around $8,500/year. Somehow I think that was a mistake. They try to sell you on the concept that 1 good job obtained as a result of advertising more than justifies the expense, and that you’d have to be a complete idiot to pass on this sure-fire way to increase revenue. This may be true in the short term, but how many jobs have we obtained in the last 7 years as a direct result of phone book advertising? Is there any reason to think that someone shopping for a contractor would not look in both books, making the choice to advertise in both books redundant and a 50% waste of money? We’ve also advertised in an annual economic development association book for around 10 years at an average cost of $700 or so. We have probably spent in excess of $60,000 on advertising over the last 10 years and have no idea what the net effect has been, but I suspect we’d be better off if we kept the majority of what we spent on advertising in our bank account. Cumulative errors are a b****. Samuel Brode on "Twitters and Forums and Blogs, Oh My!" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/twitters-and-forums-and-blogs-oh-my#post-11 Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:20:56 +0000 Samuel Brode 11@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ I agree! I've had no response to a couple of web listings. Will Discontinue. A lead program I'm listed under, results in one or two deals a year. Most are tire kickers, that want something done for free. sfbrode Test1 on "Twitters and Forums and Blogs, Oh My!" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/twitters-and-forums-and-blogs-oh-my#post-10 Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:20:02 +0000 Test1 10@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Wow! You have some pretty strong opinions. Tim Garrison on "Twitters and Forums and Blogs, Oh My!" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/twitters-and-forums-and-blogs-oh-my#post-9 Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:14:06 +0000 Tim Garrison 9@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ It seems that every marketing tip these days includes a screaming imperative for some sort of internet-based social media. It’s so boggling I’m not even sure I said that right. Rule number 1 in all business is you survive only if you sell things. Goods or services, it doesn’t matter; money only flows in when the register goes cha-ching. I found out a long time ago that selling is impossible without marketing. In the old days it was easy, you paid for ads. Nowadays you’d better be computer and internet savvy or you’re sunk. Right? If you believe marketing experts, that’s right. My experience, however, bears a different conclusion. Fearful that I might miss a sales opportunity, I’ve thrown myself into internet marketing with a zeal reminiscent of a dog pack at a kill. I built a website. Actually, I’m on my fourth or fifth (I’ve lost count), and actually I didn’t build them, I paid others to. The words “paid others” is a wretched recurring theme in this whole worldwide web business. When blogs came into vogue I shot onto that bandwagon and got myself one. Wasn’t sure why. Heck, I wasn’t even sure what a blog was, but the experts shouted that I needed one, so by-golly, I paid others to set mine up. Right after that people started inviting me to join them at LinkedIn. And Facebook. And Twitter. And MerchantCircle. Marketing experts howled that I must join! Fearing the next great gold rush might pass me by, I flailed about setting up accounts and accepting invitations. A few of the people who invited me I actually knew. I could go on, there’s more. Especially the “paid others” parts. But what’s interesting is that sales of my software and books have been absolutely immune to all of these gyrations. I’ve tracked sales through each Smoking Hot Internet Marketing Revelation and can report with certainty that they don’t work worth a hoot. At least not for me. I even tried Pay-Per-Click (PPC) through Google, Yahoo, and MSN (now Bing). If you’re unfamiliar, that’s where a potential customer goes to one of those search engines and types in a search phrase, such as “structural software”. If I’ve bid high enough for that search term, my company’s products will come up either in the right column or at the top of the list. This is a good idea in concept, but in reality it’s fraught with financial peril. First, most people on the internet are looking for freebies. My products cost money. Not a lot, but they’re not free. PPC could care less. Every click is charged to my account regardless of whether the person buys or bails. Pretty much they all bail. Another problem with PPC is that the best search terms cost a lot. For example, a top position for “structural software” on Google is going for $4.53 per click. That might not seem like much until you multiply out several hundred searches a day times seven days a week times four weeks a month... To summarize my PPC experience, I spent thousands for a blip on a sales graph so small most would confuse it for a scab. After four months, I bailed. So now what? Not only have I thrown a couple vacation’s worth of dough into the ditch that is the internet, I’ve consumed a couple lifetimes learning and trying to make it work. The secret may lie in the word, “learning”. Here’s what I’ve learned so far: * People buy things when they need them. Trying to convince someone she needs your product when she really doesn’t is hard. Very hard. * There are ways to get people to buy your product even when they don’t exactly need it. But such means are not available to normal humans. For example: o- Get a celebrity endorsement. I tried this and found that celebrities don’t want to talk to you unless: A) You’re a celebrity. In which case you wouldn’t need another one. B) You guarantee the celebrity A LOT of money for sales that have not yet occurred. I’ve never been able to convince even a non-celebrity that I could deliver on such a promise. o- Spend so much money advertising that you create need. People don’t want to be left out of the latest fashion. So if your message reaches enough people enough times, they’ll figure they’re missing out and buy. Remember the Chia Pet, Rubik’s Cube, and more recently, the Snuggie? My wife asks me why I couldn’t have thought of those brilliant gimmicks. Maybe I could have, but the problem is I don’t possess enough money to force-feed them to the masses. * People buy from companies they trust. They’ll even pay top dollar if they know the company is truly trustworthy and committed to service. * If you’re a small company with a limited advertising budget, the most you can hope for using internet marketing is to get your brand out there, and to build trust. When a customer is ready to purchase, if you’ve done those things, your chances of a sale are better than those of a competitor who hasn’t. * There are many companies eager to harvest your marketing dollars. Save your money. The best internet advertising, in my battle-scarred opinion, is absolutely free. It’s call a forum. A forum is a little like a blog except it doesn’t restrict its benefits to only the person hosting it. Blogs and Twitter are great if you’re a celebrity because people, for some baffling reason, care what celebrities say and will visit their site. Not many people care what you or I think, let alone work up the gumption to post a comment about it. With a forum, you can be a nobody and still reach many, many people. I recently joined a construction-related forum and started posting. Immediately I was building relationships and earning a readership. I got more feedback and notoriety from a single forum post than I have from a year’s worth of blogging. Why? Because it wasn’t just me spouting one-way rhetoric. Everyone in the forum community could either agree or disagree, and doing so is really easy. Talk about awesome exchange of ideas! Now that’s what the internet should be all about. I liked that forum so much I set one up myself (okay, paid others) at ConstructionCalc.com. So from now on that’s where I’ll live, virtually. And I’d love you to join me. It’s 100% free, no pressure to buy anything, and your email address won’t be pedaled to anyone. My goal is to create the place where builders, architects, engineers, and code officials gather to toss around tough construction issues. You can check it out here: <a href="http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/" rel="nofollow">http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/</a>. I strongly subscribe to the notion that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, so this forum also contains “humor, bragging rights, and other off-topic” topics. For those of you who’ve somehow missed out on the internet social media marketing hoax, good for you. If you’ve been worrying that the Igoldrush Express is racing by and you missed the train, don’t worry, you haven’t. In fact, you’re probably dollars and time ahead. I bet there’s at least one thing in this article about which you have an opinion. Please share. This article will be posted under the “Business and General” theme at <a href="http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/" rel="nofollow">http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/</a>. Tim Garrison on "Tim Garrison welcomes all new members." http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/tim-garrison-welcomes-all-new-members#post-8 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:12:28 +0000 Tim Garrison 8@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ Hello all new members! Boy am I glad to launch this new forum. I'm really looking forward to meeting and interacting with you all. Thank you for finding this site and for sharing your valuable thoughts and insights. Make sure you check out the "How to" tips in the gray header at the top and in the 2nd Forum Topic. Welcome aboard! Tim Garrison on "Too Many Holdowns" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/too-many-holdowns#post-7 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:58:14 +0000 Tim Garrison 7@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ I just finished the structural analysis for a 3-story, stick framed apartment building. It’s an addition to an existing complex with a footprint of about 10,000 square feet. I did not engineer the original buildings, which were constructed some ten years ago, but I did look at those plans because I wanted to see how the previous engineer approached the lateral (wind and seismic) design. What I saw shocked and horrified me. I didn’t count them all, mostly because life is too short, but there had to have been several hundred holdowns in each of those previous buildings. And many of them were herking, bolted-types that cost a bundle both to purchase and to install. I said to the project architect, “Mark, I bet I can do this design using only 10% of the holdowns that the first buildings used.” “No way!” he exclaimed, nearly losing his toupee. “Holdowns at every corner, door, and window are the status quo.. the fashion… the rage… the American way. You… you can’t buck that kind of tradition. Can you?” “I can, and I will. We’re in an era of build-green. These days, less is more.” “But there must be some kind of trick,” he gasped, “some sort of warping of the fabric of the building code. Are you sure you can handle it? I mean, the stress. It just isn’t natural.” Concerned for my rattled colleague’s blood pressure I tried to sooth him. “Baloney,” I said. “It’s just a matter of simple statics. If after taking into account all the applied and resistive forces there is no uplift, there is no need for a holdown. Plain and simple.” I left Mark to his mutterings and strode confidently from the meeting. I felt like a magician after having just sawed the pretty girl in half. It is now a week later and the lateral design is done. I used a grand total of 12, light-duty, strap-type holdowns. Not bad for a 30,000 square foot building. But will this structure blow away in the first wind storm? Will it get knocked off its foundation in the first earthquake? No way. Does my design meet code? You bet. Before telling you how I did this let me give you my opinion of how we became so enamored with holdowns in the first place. I remember when holdowns hit the scene, in the 1980s or so – around the same time as big-hair bands and spandex. More stringent building codes upped wind and seismic forces. Suddenly, when you analyzed a shear panel you found that at each corner, under full load, an uplift force occurred, which if not mitigated would theoretically tilt the panel right of the foundation. And in those days, puny 1/2” anchor bolts at 6-feet spacing, usually poorly installed, were the norm. The only way to alleviate this huge “new” uplift was to install a holdown. Simpson Strongtie company couldn’t have been happier. After the initial furor over having to install something besides bubble gum anchor bolts wore off, builders came to accept holdowns as necessary. Of course building codes became more and more stringent and thus have driven more and more, larger and larger holdowns. Engineers have no incentive to minimize holdowns. To them, more equals less liability. They don’t pay for holdowns so don’t care how much cost they’re heaping on the owner. Also, to really analyze ALL the forces at a shear panel edge takes quite a bit of time. Engineers usually bid their projects fixed fee, so if they can shave minutes here and there, but still project an image of having done the work, they make more profit. And, of course plans examiners aren’t going to make an issue of too many holdowns. They only care if there are too few. ENGINEER EGGHEAD: (in a puffed up, biggety voice) “Well, Mr. Owner, I’m done with the structural analysis of your project. Turns out your building needs seven hundred and twelve, HD14A holdowns!” MISTER OWNER: “Wow, Mr. Egghead, you must have really calculated up a storm.” ENGINEER EGGHEAD: “Yes I did, sir. Nearly got calculator cramp in the process. But that’s okay, heh, heh, I’ll be fine. And don’t you worry, sir, your new building will be the last one standing when the big one hits.” MISTER OWNER: “That’s great! Um, by the way, what’s the installed cost of an HD14A?” ENGINEER EGGHEAD: “Er, well, you need to take that up with your contractor. Say, I’ve gotta run – gotta meet Buffy at the Lexus dealership.” So that’s how we got to our current love affair with the holdown. Now I’ll share some tips for minimizing them. Shear walls are those that are identified by the engineer to resist wind and seismic (lateral) loads. Actually, all walls resist lateral loads but they’re not all counted in the design. The trick is knowing which walls to count. Here is my strategy: <ul><li>First, use exterior walls only (no interior walls) up to the point where the load in them becomes relatively large, say greater than 350 pounds per lineal foot (plf). Beyond that, then start to consider interior shear walls (see next bullet point.) When shear forces exceed 350 plf, holdowns become more likely, and also 3x boundary members (at sheathing edges) are required. It’s usually cheaper to spread load around to many walls, thereby keeping exterior shear walls less than 350 plf. And, by the way, spreading load around also produces a stronger, safer building.</li><li>Second, use interior shear walls only when they’re easy to connect at top and bottom, and the shear force in them is low. Interior shear walls can be sheathed with drywall, OSB, or plywood. If drywall, the allowable shear is in the 120 – 200 plf range; quite a bit lower than a plywood or OSB wall. Still, if there is enough length of wall to keep the shear below 200 plf, and you’re going to apply drywall anyway, and if connecting to horizontal diaphragms at top and bottom is easy, why not use the wall?</li><li>Third, count all the dead load on a shear wall that will truly be there. Light framed walls are generally bearing walls. Which means there is a lot of load, both live and dead, directed through them. The dead load can be used to resist overturning, a.k.a. uplift. Many engineers don’t count dead load from attached perpendicular walls at corners and partitions, but they could. Many engineers also don’t count the concentrated dead load at the ends of door and window headers but they could. It becomes an accounting chore to tally loads from roofs, floors, connected walls, and the panel itself, but the loads are really there so they should be counted.</li><li>Fourth, anchor bolts resist uplift. Many engineers don’t count anchor bolts as having any resistance to uplift. Why not? The code doesn’t preclude it. I have seen lots of photos of walls ripped off sill plates from an earthquake but the sill plate is still there, it’s scantily-spaced 1/2” anchor bolts holding it fast. As long as edge nailing to the sill plate is good, anchor bolts will resist uplift – somewhere around 750 lb. each. (Note: that 750 number depends on several things and should be calc’d. It may be higher or lower but it sure as heck is not zero.)</li><li>Fifth, a shear panel likely has more than one anchor bolt per end holding it down. A shear panel or “pier” many times is connected to a perpendicular wall which also has an anchor bolt less than a foot away. Also, if a shear panel is long and the spacing between anchor bolts is short, more than one bolt will resist uplift.</li><li>Sixth, floor-to-floor holdowns may not be necessary if the horizontal wall sheathing splice is in the right place. If wall sheathing is spliced at the wall bottom plate, the only connections holding the wall down, if there is net uplift, are the bottom plate nails. In this case, a floor-to-floor holdown is necessary. If, however, sheathing is spliced a couple feet above or below that, then uplift at the bottom plate is resisted by the continuous sheathing over it. Putting a floor-to-floor holdown there does nothing.</li><li>Seventh, use the most advantageous panel / pier height in the uplift calculation. Uplift depends on the height of the shear panel – the taller the panel the greater the uplift force. The IBC allows panel height to be calculated two ways. If the ‘short’ way is used, uplift loads are less, but the code requires detailing around the opening adjacent to the panel. Interestingly, the code doesn’t say what this detailing should be. In my opinion, either a simple king stud or a header that extends 16” minimum beyond the opening suffices.</li> </ul> Where I live, north of Seattle, wind and seismic forces are high but not extreme, thus with a little creativity and knowledge of how buildings are really built, numbers of holdowns can be kept at a minimum. In hurricane areas and where seismic forces are very high, more holdowns will, of course, be needed. Regardless, in this era of build-green, engineers should sharpen their pencils, stop being so lazy, and produce the most efficient designs possible. Copyright July, 2009. All rights reserved by Tim Garrison, P.E., The Builder’s Engineer™, Author of <a href="http://www.constructioncalc.com/engineer.php">“Cracks, Sags, and Dimwits – Lessons to Build On” and “Structural Concepts for the Non-Engineer”</a> available at <a href="http://www.constructioncalc.com/">http://www.ConstructionCalc.com</a>. Tim Garrison on "If Old Barns Could Talk" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/if-old-barns-could-talk#post-6 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:55:25 +0000 Tim Garrison 6@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ I recently read an article in our local paper about old barns. I love old barns. They’re usually red, they look cool, and they contain a certain homey smell – a mixture of hay, grease, manure, leather, and must – that can be found, well, only in old barns. My three brothers and I grew up on a cattle ranch. We had two big old barns and several outbuildings. Some of my favorite memories reside in those places. Ask the International Building Code (IBC), however, about an old barn and the response will not be so nostalgic: “That derelict collection of sticks is a disgrace to human progress! There isn’t one part or piece that complies with my dictates! The atrocity must die!” Following is just such an example, from the Skagit Valley Herald, July, 2009 by Elliot Wilson, photos by Mark Malijan. <a href="http://www.goskagit.com/home/article/saving_skagits_barns">Here is the link</a>. According to the article the Prevedell barn was built in 1915. It recently received a Heritage Barn Preservation Initiative grant. That money plus the owner’s matching funds were spent patching up the foundation and putting on a new roof. Doors, windows, studs and siding were also replaced. <center> <img src="http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/7-25-Historic-Barns_02.jpg"> <img src="http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/7-25-Historic-Barns_01.jpg"> The Prevedell Barn, built 1915. </center> If you look at the exterior photo carefully, you’ll notice that the barn is in an open field. Meaning that it is subjected to a relatively severe wind exposure, category “C” (open terrain for at least 1/2 mile) . I did a rough calculation and estimate that using today’s code the wind load on this barn would be around 50,000 lbs of sideways force. That’s 22.5 tons racking the building over. And the net uplift (total uplift minus dead weight of roof) would approach 21,000 lbs, some 10.8 tons prying the roof off. This barn does not have one shear wall, one holdown, a drag strut, or even a horizontal diaphragm. There isn’t a single hurricane clip or tie strap. And for 90 of its 94 years it had very little foundation, with only a handful, if any, anchor bolts. Look at the interior photo and you’ll note that there is no ridge beam. There are no steel plates, bolted gussets, beam hangers, column caps, or any other framing hardware. Rafters appear to be 2×6’s at 2’ spacing, spanning some 20-feet. There are poles and beams holding up the rafters which are connected together with drift pins or dowels. If I calc’d any of those structural members per today’s code they would all fail by at least 100% and in some cases 1,000% or more. In the same photo, the owner is standing on a hay loft at the eaves level. You can see that it’s loaded with hay. Hay is heavy. Much more than the rough sawn rafters and beams should be able to hold, according to code. This old barn is built just like the ones on my family’s ranch. One time my dad was cleaning the manure out of our hay barn with his tractor and knocked out a post. There was no beam spanning to the adjacent posts, just a double 2×4 top plate. The roof sagged but didn’t come down. It sat that way for several years, until my dad got around to installing a new post. A few years later some cows knocked out another post. That one was never replaced. The barn still stands today. I recently did a structural analysis of an old barn that had been converted to migrant worker housing. The owner built a three-story complex of apartments under the roof without a permit and was ratted out by a neighbor. It was my job to verify that the entire shebang was in conformance with the International Building Code (IBC). To begin with, just like all old barns, nothing original came close to meeting code. The apartments actually added a lot of lateral resistance but they, too, did not meet code. Truth be told, my job was impossible. The only way to ensure code compliance was to tear it all down and start over. That would have been infeasible for the owner and would have put a dozen families on the street. So I rolled up my sleeves and did my best, trying, as we used to say on the ranch, to make ice cream out of pig poop. If that barn would have asked me why, why was I adding all those shear walls, brackets, clips, and all that lumber, I would have been hard pressed to give a sensible answer. I’m well aware that it had been there 50 years and with a little maintenance it would be there 50 more. If old barns could talk, the Prevedell Barn might offer keen opinion on the travesty that is our IBC. It might say something like, “Now that code there… shee! It ain’t worth the paper it’s writ on. Fer one thing it’s so confounding a feller can’t make heads ner tails of it. And even if he could, with all the concrete and steel it throws around, why, it’s sorta’ like killing flies with a sledgehammer.” Copyright August 3, 2009. All rights reserved. Tim Garrison, P.E., The Builder’s Engineer™ Author of “Cracks, Sags, and Dimwits – Lessons to Build On” and “Structural Concepts for the Non-Engineer” available at <a href="http://www.ConstructionCalc.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ConstructionCalc.com</a> Tim Garrison on "Green Framing, Part 1" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/green-framing-part-1#post-5 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:51:59 +0000 Tim Garrison 5@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ (Author’s Note: The following is part of a new Green Framing chapter I’m adding to my book, “Structural Concepts For the Non-Engineer. I’ll post additional parts in the next few weeks.) General Green framing, advanced framing, frugal framing – call it what you will – but in the end it’s all about saving money and resources. There are lots of ways build-green can be incorporated into a structure: energy efficient appliances and fixtures, special doors and windows, more and better insulation, smart site planning and earthwork to name a few. This chapter is not about those, it’s about stick framing methods – strategies that conserve lumber, concrete, and steel, not to mention the manpower associated with their installation. A Little Background Billions of dollars are wasted every year in overbuilt structures. Not only have I been a framer and been guilty of many wasteful practices myself, I see the inefficiency and waste every time I walk a jobsite. Some examples: <ul><li>Too-big beams and headers</li><li>Too much blocking</li><li>Too many studs</li><li>Too many trimmers and king studs</li><li>Too many cripples</li><li>Too many holdowns</li><li>Too many shear walls</li><li>Too many posts and piers in crawlspaces</li> </ul> How did we get billion-dollar-wasteful? Here’s how: <ul><li>Building codes have gotten more and more restrictive over the years. They’ve also become so bloated and difficult to use most building industry folks avoid them like the dentist. The result is we’re gun-shy about being efficient. The accepted code mentality is “more is better.” So when we aren’t sure, we throw in more. Tons and tons and tons more. We may as well throw most of that “more” into a landfill; it does no good whatsoever. And in fact, a lot of the time it is counter-productive: more wood, concrete, and steel means less insulation; and more weight adds proportionally to seismic forces. There is no code-incentive for efficiency.</li><li>Most builders have no training in basic structural theory. Its tough to question a more-is-better mentality when you’re not really sure of the underlying concepts. How do builders learn their trade? From other builders; who learned from other builders before them, and so on. Where’s the formal structural training? It’s never been there.</li><li>Most architects and designers don’t receive enough structural training to make them experts. They generally know enough to size a beam or post but to really sharpen the pencil and get efficient puts them out of their comfort zone. And why go there when the building code doesn’t require or encourage it?</li><li>Most engineers are more worried about liability than saving someone else’s money (the owner’s). They have little incentive to produce efficient designs. To an engineer, more is safer. It takes extra time to explore green alternatives, and with engineers especially, time equals money. Why should an engineer cost himself more money, incur more liability, and go against the grain of the code, especially when he can snow job the owner as to how massively strong he’s made the building? Owners don’t know to ask the right questions, and the engineer grins all the way to the cruise ship.</li><li>Building officials have zero incentive to enforce or even encourage green techniques. They answer to the building code (see first bullet point.)</li><li>Private industry has no incentive to do anything either. Would you expect lumber companies, framing hardware companies, or concrete companies to stand up and start shouting for less use of their products? What has happened, however, is that new, efficient mousetraps in the form of SIPs (Structural Insulated Panels) and ICFs (Insulated Concrete Forms) have sprung up. Those are terrific products and I endorse them heartily. But they do nothing for the vast majority of builders who use traditional methods and materials.</li> </ul> It’s a racket and vicious cycle that desperately needs fixing. The first step is education. Once builders, designers, architects, and code officials understand what’s going on and that the solutions are attainable by them, they will start putting pressure on the engineers. Or, better yet, they’ll start implementing the designs themselves. In the BC days (Before Computers) it was unreasonable to expect non-engineers to perform structural calculations. But with the advent of computers and user-friendly software, now anyone can do basic structural design. Throughout this chapter we’ll use my company’s software, ConstructionCalc, for our green designs. If you’re new to structural design aids (span tables or software) you’ll probably want to bone up at <a href="http://www.constructioncalc.com">http://www.constructioncalc.com</a>, checking out the free examples and white papers. To keep things popping along, I’ll assume you know the basics. Again, if you need a little background please avail yourself of the freebies at <a href="http://www.constructioncalc.com">http://www.constructioncalc.com</a>. (to be continued) Copyright, August, 2009, Tim K. Garrison, P.E. All rights reserved. Tim Garrison on "Why Haven’t These Buildings Toppled?" http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/topic/why-haven%e2%80%99t-these-buildings-toppled#post-4 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:47:28 +0000 Tim Garrison 4@http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/userforum/ (Following is another section from my upcoming book on Green Framing. TKG) Building codes are a relatively new invention. The first widely-accepted building code in the U.S. was written in the early 1900s. Today’s building code, the International Building Code (IBC), has its roots in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) which was first published in 1927. Over the years many local jurisdictions adopted building codes but many did not. Even today there are jurisdictions in the U.S. that do not issue building permits nor require adherence to any building code. Where I live in western Washington, building codes are strictly enforced for any structure from a shed to a fence to a sky scraper. Around here it’s unthinkable that a house might be designed by a non-professional and built without a building permit. But where my brother lives in Kansas, there are no such requirements. Draw up your plans on a napkin, grab your hammer and go. There are lots of places like that in our country today. So in America we’ve got quite a mix-mash of structures. A few that meet current codes but many, many that don’t. I took some photographs the other day of old buildings in my county. <img src="http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/a1_titanic.jpg"> The first one, I call the Titanic. This house is probably at least 50-years-old and as you can see has settled terribly. The house is likely built partially over an old slough that was filled with logs and other debris. The part built over the slough embankments has not settled but the part built over the fill-debris has. This is called differential settlement. Incredibly, people still live in this house. <img src="http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/a2_red-barn.jpg"> The next structure is a 75+ year-old commercial building. By today’s standards it contains not a single shear wall nor a horizontal diaphragm. It is listing about a foot out of plumb, yet there it stands. <img src="http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/a3_big-barn.jpg"> Here is a very large barn, probably 50+ years old. Note how huge its wind sail area (roof) is. Also you can see that it is located in the middle of an open valley with no trees or other buildings to shield it from the wind. The gable end walls are mostly door openings, and the wood panels in between don’t come close to any sort of legal shear wall. The roof isn’t a legitimate diaphragm. There’s a two-foot sag in the roof at the eaves. Yet year after year, winter after winter, storm after storm, this barn continues to serve. <img src="http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/a4_lime-rear-wall.jpg"> According to its historic placard, this building was constructed in 1890. It has undergone an extensive tenant improvement, but other than new windows and doors, the exterior walls, floor and roof framing are original. It is built partially over a salt water channel, supported on timber piers. The horizontal siding on the long walls shows settlement up to a foot in several areas. The above photo is the rear wall. Note all the windows and doors (read: no shear panels.) <img src="http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/a5_lime-front.jpg"> The front wall is pretty much the same: all windows; which count for nothing in resisting lateral (wind and earthquake) loads. Here is what this wall looks like from the inside: <img src="http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/a6_lime-front-inside-top.jpg"> This is also the front wall, about mid-height. <img src="http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/a7_lime-front-inside-bot.jpg"> This wall is constructed of horizontal siding attached to 2×4 studs. Not one shear panel, holdown, or hurricane clip. Roof framing is 2×6 rafters, originally spanning 20+ feet. There is no ridge beam. I’d go so far as saying there isn’t one code-compliant piece of lumber or connection in this entire building. And in fact most structural elements are overstressed, according to current code, by several hundred percent. In its 119-year life, why hasn’t this building imploded or blown over? <img src="http://www.constructioncalc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/a8_antique.jpg"> This last building was also built in 1890. One corner (the one by the streetlight) has settled at least six-inches. But that’s not what makes this one of the most dangerous buildings in the county. The front wall is all glass. No shear walls, no portal frames, no buttress walls, nothing. And the next parallel interior wall is some 30-feet back into the building. As the one corner sinks, the building tilts causing racking (shear) stress on the window wall. Should a window break or crack there is a real possibility that this building would fall over sideways – I’ve seen it happen to a building of similar construction in a nearby town. Yet, this building stands. All of the aforementioned structures have lived through snow accumulation of several feet, howling wind storms, and earthquakes. All across America and the world are buildings that don’t come close to meeting current code. It usually takes a hurricane, tornado, severe neglect, freakish snow storm, or 7+ magnitude earthquake to bring them down. And even then many survive. So what’s the point? The point is that things not built to code are usually plenty strong and those that are built to code are vastly stronger than they need to be in most cases. If you live in a jurisdiction that has building codes and enforces them, you don’t have a choice but to comply with those codes. But you don’t need to overbuild. Let me say that again. Our building codes contain so much factor of safety, no one should ever feel compelled to exceed them. The grossly non-code-compliant buildings on the previous pages, in my opinion, provides stout testimonial. Our industry should be actively searching for ways to trim our designs so that they just comply with code and no more. If we build stronger than code we’re literally throwing away money and effort. And we’re not building green. This book is about minimal, yet code-compliant, structural design. Green design. The trick is understanding the underlying structural concepts: where loads come from; where they go; and how they’re resisted. With that knowledge, we can maximize efficiency and save money.