Going Green... Things continue to develop

I don't keep track of the "green thing" very much, but i am amazed by how much information/literature there is out there... If i didn't know better, i'd think people were actually paying attention to this and (gasp) trying to apply it in real life!

So today i was innocently going over some TJI/iLevel stuff on there website, and going over the ESR reports came across a "new" animal. The report that iLevel has "piggy-backed" onto a  number of their ESR reports is "VAR" report. The full reference is the "ICC-ES SAVE: Verification of Attributes Report". Never heard of this before... obviously i don't get out much!

So iLevel has a VAR-1008 out that talks about its products in light of green standards, LEED etc. I don't know much about this, but iLevel apparently thinks its important to designate its products in terms of these various requirements.

Have you heard of the following:

1. National green Building Standard (ICC700-2008)
2. USGBC (US Green Building Council) LEED for homes 2008
3. USGBC LEED 2009 for New construction and Major Renovations
4. USGBC LEED 2009 for Schools - new construciton and major renovations
5. USGBC LEED 2009 for Core and Shell Development
6. USGBC LEED 2009 for Commercial Interiors
7. USGBC LEED for existing buildings 2008
8. 2010 california Green Building Standards
9. ANSI/GBI 01-2010 - Green Building Assesment protocol for commercial buildings
10. ASHRAE Standard 189.1 - 2009.

I can't say that i'm "boned up" and au fait with any one of these standards or publications. However, iLevel thinks well enough of these standards to publish tables of how their products conform or contribute to these standards... amazing...!

Check our the VAR at: G:\LIBRARY\DETAILS\MFR\iLevel

This looks like something we can no longer continue to ignore... any comments thoughts about this...

BIM - Risa and Wood Framed Design

You may have heard talk about Woodworks teaming up with Risa with a view to providing software in exchange for essentially a "glowing report" and feedback etc about the process. I have spent several days on this issue since we decided to model our smallest building on the Ash Way project in Revit. We thought this to be a good chance to further our Revit experience AND to enter the fray of modelling anaylis. These are my findings:

1. Building the model: The idea of building a model once, and using it to perform your analysis and then doing "double duty" and using it in drafting duty is indeed enticing. It is the definition of Nirvana in the BIM circles...
   Unfortunately, Nirvana has not yet arrived! The marraige between Revit and Risa leaves a LOT to be desired. Having used Revit previously, we can build the model well enough - although there are some new nuances with respect to (wrt) ensuring that the "analytic model" (where the centerlines and workpoints of entities are that an analysis software would use for crunching numbers) is well thought out, and that the nodes connect EXACTLY!
   Revit is able to export its model to RISA through a link. This does effectively transfer info about geometry to RISA, however there is MUCH legwork to do after that.
   It should be mentioned that using RISA - actually using TWO pieces of software - RISA floor and RISA 3D. To try to create "Nirvana" it si necessary to know BOTH these softwares well!
2. Some of my pet peaves with the RISA match up are:

• Material properties are not imported from Revit - you need to set up every wall with correct parameters - once set the parameters do not make it back "into the model in Revit"
• Doorways and Windows are not imported into the RISA model... wth!? you may well ask - i did! The answer is to be found in the small print - you have to model each opening as an "opening in a face" - a Revit term that requires a different process than a window or a door insertion! (did i mention legwork...?)
• Import of DXF files: There is not import of a DWG background. additionally import is very querky into RISA. I finally got a dxf to import - but you ahve to "doctor" the file to import walls - walls need to drawn on a layer with a polyline - where the "gage specified" is the wall thickness - only then will it import walls! - Who knew!
• RISA itself does NOT model flexible diaphragms: The whole point of doing wood framing....! Insted you are left to apply an "area load" which apparently applies loads to walls based on a "pseudo-area" assignment. It was not immediately obvious to me exactly how this was assigned on a complex wall arrangement.
• Re-work of walls: Even though the models were imported form Revit, and did stack, RISA had problems with many of the node points... Leading to re-create nodes in the RISA software... can you say "time consuming...?"
• 2-stage analysis - redefined: RISA wants you to use Risa Floor in order to provide some "pre-processor" capability as a prelude to the RISA 3D work over... The problem with this initial setup is the software wants you to do a "complete" framing plan, and model all aspects of the wood framing BEFORE it will transfer you to RISA 3D - where the heavy lifting is done - the lateral analysis!
3. RISA Output: In theory RISA can provide a good calc and some decent output - see printouts below. However the overhead required seems onerous. It seems that in "our world" where we have 3 or 4 span conditions to design floor joists for - its unreasonable to create a whole model to determine something that we can do by hand in 15 min. Also the wall design fro gravity - again the same comment applies - we have a couple of wall types... it takes 30min to design the studs... do we really have to model every single wall in the project in order to proceed onto the "the juicy bits" ie lateral design. (of course Risa will tell you all you need to do is input dummy elements and sdummy loads etc... all that still takes time, and now you're starting to wonder if these short cuts are going to affect the veracity of the output... ie what is it using in its calcs...? )

SDWC Strong-Drive® Structural Wood Screw for Truss and Rafter Connections

I saw this new screw connection in Simpson's "arsenal" ... does it have a place in the Polygon/Quadrant world, and maybe more...?

SDWC Strong-Drive® Structural Wood Screw for Truss and Rafter Connections

Verco Deck - Changes have happened - TUNE IN online

So, imagine my surprise when i went online to www.vercodeck.com, and printed out some W2 and W3 concrete pandeck sheets from home... only to find those numbers in all those columns were ALL different from the numbers in my (2001) catalog...!

Having heard neither hide-no-hair about any changes to the Verco catalogs. I called up our rep Holly S. She mentioned that YES there are changes. These are NEW. They go as follows:

1. The grade has been changed to Fy=50ksi (vs Fy=30/38ksi). So while the materials have goten thinner (due to the rolling process with higher grade materials), the actual decks load and span charateristics have improved favorably. So, if you have a new job... check online for latest info!
2. The questions of 1-2-3 span conditions refers: Holly says that the limiting factors are the shear transfer between the decking metal and the concrete, and that the span conditions do not particularly apply. (?) She volunteered to send over some data from which the span tables were derived. I received that, and stuck it on the server at the followiung link - G:\LIBRARY\DETAILS\MFR\verco. But regardless, she confirms the basic thought that the 3-span condition refers to all spans over 2 spans - regardless of the end-span condition... (it was my contention that end span conditions needed to be treated as a 2-span condition since the moments are similar). The point is mostly moot, as there is NO difference between the 1-2 or 3 span conditions for the majority of cases (unless shoring is required)...

Retaining wall - Creative solution

So what do you do when you have a 20ft situation that needs to be retained... and the solution that comes up is a (huge) concrete cant'd wall with a big key...? Add to that a building surcharge of 4 stories or so, and you're into serious head-scratching mode... right...?

In my meeting with GRE a few weeks back, the contractor Bruce Moe and the geotech ganged up to come up with the following idea... It makes use of geotextile materials to reinforce the dirt, and take care of the surcharge loads from the building. All that, and my active goes down to 15psf... Looks like a good deal... Will let you know how the design turns out!

Energy Efficiency - WTH!!?

So I wanted to start a dialog about energy efficiency, and how this appears to be making inroads into our engineering life...  It is!

The latest effort appears to try to have architects "insulate" the edges of exposed (elevated) slabs by installing 2" (or so) rigid insulation at the edge of the (PT) slab and directly under the sole plate of an exterior wall... thereby affecting the bearing of the sole plate, reducing edge distances potentially to anchor bolts and holdowns, and possibly exacurbating a corner shear break-out condition... all in the name of "energy efficiency"...

There appear to be 2 camps of thought in our office on this score concerning wherther to "entertain" this type of condition. There seems to be some resistance to accepting this as a status quo - i agree with this approach... It seems that the "tale is waggin" the dog on this one... surely the structural aspects of the building design should take precedence over this type of "energy assault"...

The goal of this dialog is to try to "faciliate" the desire for energy efficiency, but to do it in an informed manner that can legitimately point to other aspects of construction that are not as invasive, but can still get the "savings" needed for the energy budget...

I think the SOG insulation is in a similar situation and needs to be discussed... particularly where we "buttress" the bottom of soil retaining walls with the SOG....

Comments please...?

PT Design: Stud Rails: Limited capacity!!!

Recent discussions about studrail design refers.

Note that Ram Concept has the ability to design studrails according to the provisions of the ACI 318-08 (or previous versions if you're so inclined) . Previous codes had "speed bumps" allocated such that

• Vc =< 2(f'c)^0.5 (Concrete strength) and,
• Vn =< 6(f'c)^0.5. 

 In current (08) code, this has been bumped up to

• Vc =< 3(f'c)^0.5 and 
• Vn =< 8(f'c)^0.5. 

 (See ACI 318-08 [11.11.3](general shear rebar condition) and [11.11.5] (New section for headed stud rails). This change is in line with comments from ACI 421-99 which has some suggestions for parameters for studrails applicability.

The issue is this: The Decon Studrail ICC report limits the Vc to =< 1.5(f'c)^0.5...!!!! WTH... That means that we could conceivably design stud rails all the way at 3(f'c)^0.5 - when in fact the product to be installed (including all look-alikes) are limited to 1.5(f'c)^0.5 by approved ICC docs. ICC claims that this limit is inherent in the ACI 421 code which references that limit in relation to earthquake loads... not sure of the context... do not have a copy of this doc...!

So given the lack of clarity and direction on this issue at this point (i called Decon and ICC - no real direction coming from any of them!) - we have decided at CTE to limit our studrail designs to the 318-05 version - which includes the 2* and 6* limits...