That's racist!

#12,001
#12,001
utvolpj said:
As someone who did most math on my head I fully support the end of "show your work" policies
Click to expand...
There's plenty of kids that can't simply do it in their head. Showing your work helps you process the logic, and helps a teacher see where you went wrong and how to correct it. The vast majority of us will never use the calculus or trig we learned, but math teaches you how to logically approach and solve problems. If you can't explain how you got from A to B it makes it hard to trust the accuracy and consistency of your work. I wouldn't want to submit something to the IRS or a government agency that someone had just "done in their head".
 
#12,002
#12,002
utvolpj said:
As someone who did most math on my head I fully support the end of "show your work" policies
Click to expand...
As an engineer who designed structures who's correct design and construction ensured the safety of the people who used them, I support the continuation of "showing your work." I would have no desire to live in a city of subjective mathers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, StarRaider and dovervolz
#12,003
#12,003
Kristy* said:
As an engineer who designed structures who's correct design and construction ensured the safety of the people who used them, I support the continuation of "showing your work." I would have no desire to live in a city of subjective mathers.
Click to expand...
Just curious how you structural type people "show your work"? I did electrical engineering and most things that required any kind of calculations was fairly standard practice out of a table of numbers in a book.
 
#12,004
#12,004
DancingOutlaw said:
Why is getting the right answer and proving how you got it a white thing? Do the Asians know this?
It just to be racist to say Asians are good at math, now the line is white people are all about being married, speaking clearly, working in teams, getting right answers, and showing how they did it. If these are the best stereotypes they can assign us I say keep them coming.
Click to expand...
It's along the lines of Germans bombing Pearl Harbor
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#12,006
#12,006
VolStrom said:
Just curious how you structural type people "show your work"? I did electrical engineering and most things that required any kind of calculations was fairly standard practice out of a table of numbers in a book.
Click to expand...
Most of our calculations involve load distribution. Gravity, equipment, wind, seismic, floor live, etc. We use tables to determine some of the loads. We still have to show which tables and the formulas used to get to our numbers. Then we have to show how we apply the loads. From there we size members. Showing our work affords us protection if something were to go wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, marcusluvsvols, dovervolz and 1 other person
#12,007
#12,007
Kristy* said:
Most of our calculations involve load distribution. Gravity, equipment, wind, seismic, floor live, etc. We use tables to determine some of the loads. We still have to show which tables and the formulas used to get to our numbers. Then we have to show how we apply the loads. From there we size members. Showing our work affords us protection if something were to go wrong.
Click to expand...
So I take it you understand why the world trade centers fell?
 
#12,009
#12,009
VolStrom said:
So I take it you understand why the world trade centers fell?
Click to expand...
Because they weren't designed for the impact of large aircraft or to continue to support the weight of the aircraft, while the support structure continued to weaken under the extreme heat of the jet-fuel fire? I'm not sure I understand why you ask.
 
#12,012
#12,012
Kristy* said:
Because they weren't designed for the impact of large aircraft or to continue to support the weight of the aircraft, while the support structure continued to weaken under the extreme heat of the jet-fuel fire? I'm not sure I understand why you ask.
Click to expand...
A bunch of people here contend that the buildings were brought down with explosives and not the impact of the planes and the subsequent damage and fire.
 
#12,013
#12,013
VolStrom said:
A bunch of people here contend that the buildings were brought down with explosives and not the impact of the planes and the subsequent damage and fire.
Click to expand...
Oh. I'm not a big conspiracy theorist. Its completely plausible that the heat caused the columns to buckle and rendered any trusses and braces useless. If there were bombs, I would imagine that the explosion would have been more horizontal instead of a straight vertical collapse. Plus, someone would have found some evidence of explosives. Don't know what could have been gained by not having an honest investigation.
 
#12,017
#12,017
LouderVol said:
That's a pretty chunky roof dead load isnt it?

How inclusive is that? Some type of green roof?

Cant read the notes but what is going on with those beams? Looks like a splice before the girders?
Click to expand...

Have you ever designed a storm shelter using ICC 500? Most designs use composite beam systems for the roof. I think I used 5" or 6" slab on deck if I recall. And if you think the dead load is chunky, take a look at the wind pressure. Lol. Had to design it for V=250 mph per code requirements. I think that's probably one of the reasons most people use a slab, so the dead load helps prevent net uplift. I still ended up with net uplift, however, but not nearly as much as I would have had.
 
#12,018
#12,018
SamRebel35 said:
Have you ever designed a storm shelter using ICC 500? Most designs use composite beam systems for the roof. I think I used 5" or 6" slab on deck if I recall. And if you think the dead load is chunky, take a look at the wind pressure. Lol. Had to design it for V=250 mph per code requirements. I think that's probably one of the reasons most people use a slab, so the dead load helps prevent net uplift. I still ended up with net uplift, however, but not nearly as much as I would have had.
Click to expand...
I figured the high wind was due to hurricanes or tornado prevalence. Or maybe insurance related. FM upped numbers in one of my projects, but I doubt that high.
 
#12,019
#12,019
LouderVol said:
That's a pretty chunky roof dead load isnt it?

How inclusive is that? Some type of green roof?

Cant read the notes but what is going on with those beams? Looks like a splice before the girders?
Click to expand...

And the joist beams are spliced at the corridor wall at the top of the sketch. You can't tell from the sketch screen capture, but the joist beams on the Northside of the bearing wall are only like 10 ft long.

And if you thought the dead load on the roof was chunky, look at the footing width! 72"! That's how wide I needed it to be just to not exceed soil bearing capacity when wind is trying to cause overturning. I checked with a few colleagues who have done storm shelters before and they said those footings are not unreasonable based on what they had designed in the past. Lol. Made feel a little better. Seems crazy to me, but that's what the numbers say.
 
#12,020
#12,020
SamRebel35 said:
And the joist beams are spliced at the corridor wall at the top of the sketch. You can't tell from the sketch screen capture, but the joist beams on the Northside of the bearing wall are only like 10 ft long.

And if you thought the dead load on the roof was chunky, look at the footing width! 72"! That's how wide I needed it to be just to not exceed soil bearing capacity when wind is trying to cause overturning. I checked with a few colleagues who have done storm shelters before and they said those footings are not unreasonable based on what they had designed in the past. Lol. Made feel a little better. Seems crazy to me, but that's what the numbers say.
Click to expand...
*i was about to say something you said in your post about the overturning*
We have a situation where our footing is taller than the wall it supports. Cantilever footing

Due to a property line we are supporting a wall from the wrong side
 
#12,022
#12,022
LouderVol said:
*i was about to say something you said in your post about the overturning*
We have a situation where our footing is taller than the wall it supports. Cantilever footing

Due to a property line we are supporting a wall from the wrong side
Click to expand...

Yeah, a cantilevered retaining wall with all toe and no heel. Not ideal, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

And when I mentioned overturning, I'm talking about overturning in the plane of the wall, not out of plane. Not sure if I made that clear before. But just a crazy calculation. Never thought wind would ever control for a CMU one story building but storm shelters are no joke in their design requirements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#12,024
#12,024
SamRebel35 said:
Yeah, a cantilevered retaining wall with all toe and no heel. Not ideal, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

And when I mentioned overturning, I'm talking about overturning in the plane of the wall, not out of plane. Not sure if I made that clear before. But just a crazy calculation. Never thought wind would ever control for a CMU one story building but storm shelters are no joke in their design requirements.
Click to expand...
Not sure I follow "in the plane of the wall". This where our structure classes for dummy's let's me down. I thought by its nature overturning was out of plane?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top