JLNJ,
I can see that, if one beam on the third floor was going nuts, it wouldn't matter much to the total base shear. You can see that with a program like RISA-3D.
However there has to be a better way to say it than "percent of active mass that is participating". After all, if you model a...
Thanks for the responses and references.
I should have said my main interest is seismic response in buildings. I think the 90% is required by the building code but I can't seem to put my finger on it at the moment.
I have heard the 90% number forever and have seen it reported in the results...
Can someone tell me what the following state means:
“When you perform the response spectra analysis (RSA), at least 90% of the model's mass must participate in the solution.”
It seems to me that the whole structure is in motion in all modes, so that 100% of the mass is involved in any mode...
I found the answer on an Autodesk forum. The ALIGN command is an external command and can't be called with the command function. You have to call it as follows:
(align (lastent) p1 p2 p3 p4)
First you have to load it as follows
(command "align") (command)
That seems to make it work all the...
Here is the code:
;No att editing here.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;bki.lsp - MAJ - 8-7-10
;Type "bki" (without the quotes) on the command line
; ------ MAIN FUNCTION ---------------
;Main Function
(defun c:bki ( / resp resp2 ss counter edata data1 data2 frac1 frac2...
Hello,
I’ve written an Autolisp routine which uses the “command” function. It works perfectly three times, with no errors and gets back to the command prompt. The fourth time I use the command I get an error: “Fatal Error, Commands may not be nested more than four deep”.
I have looked to...
I have heard of reduced seismic for retrofit of some existing buildings. Check International Existing Building Code (hope I got that right). But I don't think it was as much as 50% off.
So, why would the Geotech suggest doing that? I wonder if the Geotech would be willing to stamp the...
I'll throw another question or two in as well:
(1) Connectegr, you mentioned that it isn't allowed to test SMAW for the purpose of increased nominal strength. Where is that, AWS1.1?
(2) I see fabricators weld 14 gage stair pans to stringers (e.g. MC10 or plate) without a little supporting...
Connectegr,
Many Thanks for your time and knowledge!
Some of that I knew. I didn't know it wasn't allowed to test SMAW to justify higher strength.
Best Regards,
Mark Johnson PE
More thoughts:
You are, of course, right about who picks the process, the fabricator.
If your in seismic country where the engineer picks the size, a fabricator might be more apt to use SMAW. If the fabricator is given the required strength and gets to pick the size, (not seismic country) I...
Thanks to you guys for the responses.
I believe Connectegr is saying you don't get the extra penetration with SMAW. That would be consistant with the old spec. which only allowed extra strength for SAW. Am I reading you right?
Are you also saying that practically all fillet welds are done by...
List:
Here's one for the welding experts:
In the old AISC 1993 Spec. (J2.2a) you used to be able to
get extra effective throat on a fillet weld if it was done with the SAW process. In the 2005 Spec. this has disappeared and been replaced with a testing
requirement. This could apply to all...
Thanks Very Much Guys,
I think I have what I need to state my case (that just a CJP to A36 plate won't work).
This is a valuable forum!
Mark Johnson PE
