Just Testing the Topic/Thread Concept.

No thats not quite what I was looking for. Looking more to create a topic Hierarchy to foster discussion in topic area before any calculations are submitted. Change from requests to topics of discussion which, generate calculation snippets to address design issues.

Building Codes
Building Code of Australia (BCA)
Structural Provisions
Design Actions (Wind Loading AS1170.2 and AS4055)
Member Design (Steel Structures AS4100)
Member Design ((Cold-formed Steel Structures AS4600)
Member Design (Aluminium Structures AS1664)
Member Design (Timber Structures AS1720)
Timber Framed Housing (AS1684)
Steel Framed Housing (AS3623/NASH)
Mechanical Services
Electrical Services

Under these topics can generate and assess presence of an active interest in an area. Get the comments before submission, thus reduce downloads with no feedback. Since only contributing to an active community in first place. Also assess technical competence, so that no providing black-boxes to the unskilled.

Just get some discussion going on codes and design models, appropriate and inappropriate methods of modelling physical systems. Rather than textbook calc's. Anyone can type up a calculation from a textbook, it doesn't make them a useful point of contact to discuss real design issues.

I'm all for it!

How can I help out?

Yikes! Really 3.5 years since I posted that. Time flys.

Well I mostly participate in Structural Engineers Association International email listserver (SEAint) discussions.

www.seaint.org/

There the discussions centre around the use of the structural codes, though tends to require getting some familiarity with the US codes, however Australian codes are relatively similar: just a few procedural differences.

Rather than how to calculate say elastic buckling moment, discussion more likely to be concerned with what can or cannot be considered adequate lateral restraint. Or there is the use of the wind loading code, main wind force resisting system, and cladding and component pressures. Comparision of UBC:1997 versus IBC, I throw in BCA. Authors of codes and people on commitees get involved, explaining what was intended.

Issues are raised which then leads to methods of calculation, available handbooks and design guides beyond codes of practice, and qualitative issues of design beyond the calculations.

Australia has no real forum in which codes of practice are discussed. The Australian journal of structural engineering, published once a year, with feedback possibly 2 years after an article published is not very useful. Compared to the IStructE journal published fortnightly.

The wind loading code (AS1170.2) recently revised, where was the open debate and discussion. I did use the free version of standards watch, but always seemed to advise after draft review period closed. Where was the structural journal explaining a real need to make changes. I don't have the new code yet: but no doubt I will have to revise my vba functions, and Excel workbooks to suit.

The other issue is Australia has a limited range of software to choose from, the lack of diversity can pose problems. Like LimSteel used to generate the AISC/ASI design capacity tables (DCT's) and otherwise integrated in most common frame analysis software. Similarly all coldformed steel manufacturers use the same software from the centre of advanced structural engineering (CASE). Where is the independent check in this system?

My calculations for column buckling capacity seem to underestimate the published values in the DCT's. The procedures seem to be correct against the worked examples guide for AS4100, so something about BHP300plus properties I guess.

So my idea is that build a forum around the calculations: use the calculations as a launch pad to discuss the larger design issues which either feed into the calculations, or give cause for the calculations.

Also active discussion, which students and graduates can review. Not just a simple matter of picking up a spreadsheet and calculating phi.Mb or phi.Nc. What constitutes adequate lateral restraint to reduce values of Lx, Ly, and Lz ? Such being dependent on the application. The Canberra bridge collapse indicates not very well understood.

I have had clients wanting floor beams designed: but indicated don't want steel beams because have too much bounce: they want timber. But if timber, and want calculations, then its outside scope of timber framing code AS1684.2 : which takes into account floor vibration. The guide for floor vibration is produced by the steel institute. So have to explain that the material is irrelevant, the steel beams they'd experienced in the past weren't properly designed: and if the timber beams are not properly designed they will also have too much bounce.

So not just a matter of heres the calculation, but the calculations have a purpose. We should also try to get away from the codes of practice. Why have floor vibration methods in timber framing code and the residential metal framing code? Why have these two codes?

Via the use of workbooks we have the potential to consolidate some of the codes, why have one for timber and another for steel, and still others for aluminium? Consolidate across materials, and also between different national codes.

To a certain extent it is just easier to go buy software. But software basically locks user into its methodology: mostly code checking. Such diminishes understanding, and leads to poor design: the only results can get is solution the software can print out. So need to get these structural software users, to see the greater benefits of building own applications in Excel/vba.

So starting point is getting an audience of Australian structural designers, discussing design issues relative to Australian codes of practice. Common flaws that certifiers see, that should be given more attention: for example.

What design tools are people looking for, and who are they? A great many applications can be integrated using Excel/vba and COM automation. But for sales people needing rapid structural check to get cost estimate at point-of-sale, need something with less expensive than using Acad as a graphics engine and Multiframe as an analysis engine.

Structural calculations are a means to an end and they have to be integrated into other tools, to speed up and reduce the time expended on the over all design process, to more rapidly supply the finished article that people really want. For they don't want pictures of objects or calculations.

Could start with say a discussion of the limitations of the available tools. For example the use of MicroStran can be made faster by using Excel/VBA to generate '*.arc' data files. The dimension and geometry can be calculated and the wind loads applied for relatively simple and common place structural forms.

The probabalistic model in the BCA can be expanded, and refined, justifying alternative annual probabilities of exceedence for specific structural forms. The codes are just preferred guidelines: the fundamental requirement is to provide adequate evidence-of-suitability.


I don't know really. Its just a matter of diving in and getting some discussion topics started and then keeping the momentum up.

I also think that students, graduates and sole practitioners or small businesses are the primary audience. Big business tends to be able to afford the commercial software and otherwise driving its content. Big business tends to be more specialised. Whilst students and the small practitioner jump around a lot more between areas of practice.

Thats the rough idea. Probably doesn't help much.

Thankyou for the interest.