SEAINT List Archive: October 2010

Sunday, October 31, 2010

RE: China's high speed rail

Thanks Andrew,

I guess it's a matter of focus. I focused on the 10,000 miles of track.

Rightly or wrongly I assumed the technology was little different than that
of the APT, TGV and bullet trains. And as with all this technology none of
it is operated at the world record speeds they set. And therefore the speed
record is of little significance, they've simply joined the club.

As such the tracks therefore are usuable by conventional trains, there are
just a few minor differences in track characteristics, like long straight
lines.

And I assume the plains of China are relatively flat, so there would be few
bridges required. So main structural type issues are:

1) Continuously welded track
2) Timber sleepers, reinforced concrete sleepers, or new polymer based
sleepers.
3) Signage and signals
4) Station buildings and platforms

Though they could opt for a high speed bus service like Adelaide's O'Bahn:
the buses move between road and high speed tracks. The precast concrete
tracks can be assembled on site with less site preparation then conventional
rail. But the buses don't travel any where near as fast as trains. The
intermodal system does however collect people from the local neighbourhoods
and move them to the high speed track: for most routes with out the need to
change bus. The 1 hour conventional trip being reduced to 20 minutes on the
O'Bahn. It takes an hour by car as well, so O'Bahn gives more freedom to
spend time doing what want to do, than wasting time travelling.

Due to the way the track is constructed there is less need for cut and
build-up of the site, basically an elevated open framework, so siteand track
drainage is also less of a problem.

Moving from agrarian society to industrialised typically requires that less
than 10% of population is involved in agriculture, and majority involved in
manufacturing and construction type work. So building the railway tracks
will provide work away from farming.

There can be side effects to. In replacing the timber sleepers with concrete
sleepers on the Adelaide to Perth track, there became a large supply of
timber sleepers available for garden retaining walls: businesses sprang up
building such walls and supplying the sleepers. The timber sleepers are now
rare, and concrete sleeper retaining walls are now more common. So if some
of the high speed track being constructed in China is upgrade of existing,
then there will be resources available for alternatives use. Dyanamic
adaptive systems: no telling where they will go.

Generally I have little interest in sport, a waste of resources when people
are starving. On the otherhand it provides employment, so what is and is not
a sensible activity to pursue is difficult to say. Moving away from
producing food to relying on others to produce food is a major risk to take.
And whether have capitalism or communism: both are dynamic adaptive systems
with markets: they just operate differently: one has many centres of control
and the other a supposedly single centre. And no nation on earth has an
economy which is purely one form or the other. Better to discuss the
dynamics of the supply system, than argue the emotive terms of capitalism
versus communism: neither approach is much use. Its about time something new
was said in economics.

In short I didn't see any posturing.

Also many structural/mechanical issues involved with trains and associated
infrastructure. And I assume the list is not just limited to structures of
buildings. Is the body of the vehicles an integral shell, or a frame and
fabric system? I'm sure many structural questions could be asked if got away
from the politics.

Regards
Conrad Harrison
B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
Adelaide
South Australia

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Steel Sections Connections Database

http://www.sacsteel.org/connections

Saturday, October 30, 2010

RE: shell stability

Don’t know if this is applicable. Just came to memory. Milo Ketchum did a lot of study on shells. Here’s his web page.

http://www.ketchum.org/-milo/

Rich

From: Steve Gordin [mailto:sgordin@sgeconsulting.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:50 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: shell stability

Good afternoon,

I am looking for a source of Practical analysis of a

Shallow - Thin - Cylindrical Shell/panel
under
Uniform Radial Compression.

The books I have on the subject turn to be of mostly academic value.

Can anyone point me in a right direction?

TIA,
--

Steve Gordin SE

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.864 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3227 - Release Date: 10/30/10 01:34:00

More Useful Steel Tables

I have uploaded some new tables to the following location (Steel Design Tables) on structuralpedia:

http://structuralpedia.com/index.php?title=Steel_Design_Tables

The tables are AISC wide flange beam section properties in english and metric units.

I will be uploading more tables in the future, but if there are some that you would like to see, feel free to contact me.

Enjoy!

-JWhite

Steel Design Tables

View this post conveniently at:

SEAINT List Archive

StructuralPedia List Archive

High-speed vs conventional train

REPLY:

When you ride a HST, the feeling is similar to that being on a plane,

but with different ups and downs.

Now, to nit-pick (right spelling?) on the opinion below.

Work is force multiplied by a distance travelled.

The multiplier of 27 is on the force. The distance covered, in a unit of time, is 3x larger,

so the energy needed is 9x larger.

But the aero resistance is only a part of the total, so energy input will not grow that much.

Also, the aero shaping is better, which further descreases the multiplier.

The frequency-of-use factor will divide the result by 3.

Sincerely

Gregory from Oz

OPINION:

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:53 AM, IRV FRUCHTMAN <ifaeng@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Fellow Engineers,
>
> High speed trains are wonderful engineering feats, but I don't believe
> saving energy is one of them. As I recall from my school days: drag force=
is
> proportional to speed squared and power (read energy) is proportional to
> speed cubed. Therefore a train moving at 300 mph, compared to a train at =
100
> mph, uses (300/100)^3 =3D 27 times as much energy. If the requirement f=
or
> the number of trains is reduced by 1/3 =96 to move the same number of peo=
ple -
> then the increased energy use is 27/3 =3D 9. Therefore, 9 times as much e=
nergy
> is required to move the same people/ load with a high speed train as
> compared to "low" speed train.
>
>
> Given a choice, I'll take an airplane.

Friday, October 29, 2010

RE: Baseball Filed Fencing

Thanks for advice- am awaiting a soils report so that "flag pole" type footings can be designed.

Larry Hauer S.E.

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:57:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Baseball Filed Fencing
From: d.topete73@gmail.com
To: seaint@seaint.org

It's all find and dandy if the columns calc out, but be confident that the footings will hold up. If a geotechnical investigation has not been done, make sure that it is.

On a Park/Rec project I am working on, the sports lighting consultant ended up designing 40' deep x 36" drilled piers. Granted the soils are crap (liquefiable), and the footings need to reach the stiffer material. But, even at 11-feet on-center, at 40-feet tall, there will still be some 'heavy' foundation work for 'such a lightweight structure.'

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Larry Hauer <lhauer@live.com> wrote:

To All,

Thanks for the responses and we plan on putting a big note on our constr. drawings that no signage or covering shall be put over the chain link fencing. Of course they will end up doing it anyway, but I don't want to get this thing too massive, (right now- 8" diam. pipe columns @ 11' o.c. for a 40' high fence, (spliced to 6" diam. @ 20' up). Per CBC/ASCE requirements, I am NOT using a 33% stress increase, which should add a factor of safety in case signage is installed.

Thanks again,

Larry Hauer S.E.

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:52:43 -0700
From: sgordin@sgeconsulting.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Baseball Filed Fencing

Larry,

The last time I worked on a similar project, it was an extension of the existing backstop from the 36 to 48 ft height. I first decided to use the references Tom recommended, but ended up calculating wind loads myself with ASCE 7. The task was not too tedious, and, as I was able to justify Exposure B, the loads were not too high; however, they still added up fast.

The existing chain link fence was actually covered with a much denser mesh with some vinyl signs on it. I was told that the coach needed the mesh to protect the players from being blinded by the sun.

I ended up sistering the existing posts, and was limited only by the size of the existing footings (which were luckily oversized). In a new job, the actually difference between the solid and non-solid wall design - in terms of construction cost - is not that high. My point is - how are you going to make sure no additional covering will be ever installed? I would recommend to play it safe.

--
V. Steve Gordin SE
SGE Consulting Structural Engineers
www.sgeconsulting.com

Larry Hauer wrote:
To All,

I have to design some fencing around a baseball field which will be 40' high with columns at about 11' o.c. The fencing itself will be open chain link type and we will make sure that no covering be put over it. So, my question is: Any advice on designing the pipe columns, (and footings), for wind loading other than using the ASCE requirements with a reduction of surface area due to the open chain link fencing?

Thanks in Advance,

Larry Hauer S.E.

--
David Topete, SE

Re: Baseball Filed Fencing

Guy wires are another possibility which could make sense.

Regards,

H. Daryl Richardson

----- Original Message -----

From: David Topete

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 10:57 AM

Subject: Re: Baseball Filed Fencing

It's all find and dandy if the columns calc out, but be confident that the footings will hold up. If a geotechnical investigation has not been done, make sure that it is.

On a Park/Rec project I am working on, the sports lighting consultant ended up designing 40' deep x 36" drilled piers. Granted the soils are crap (liquefiable), and the footings need to reach the stiffer material. But, even at 11-feet on-center, at 40-feet tall, there will still be some 'heavy' foundation work for 'such a lightweight structure.'

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Larry Hauer <lhauer@live.com> wrote:

To All,

Thanks for the responses and we plan on putting a big note on our constr. drawings that no signage or covering shall be put over the chain link fencing. Of course they will end up doing it anyway, but I don't want to get this thing too massive, (right now- 8" diam. pipe columns @ 11' o.c. for a 40' high fence, (spliced to 6" diam. @ 20' up). Per CBC/ASCE requirements, I am NOT using a 33% stress increase, which should add a factor of safety in case signage is installed.

Thanks again,

Larry Hauer S.E.

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:52:43 -0700
From: sgordin@sgeconsulting.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Baseball Filed Fencing

Larry,

The last time I worked on a similar project, it was an extension of the existing backstop from the 36 to 48 ft height. I first decided to use the references Tom recommended, but ended up calculating wind loads myself with ASCE 7. The task was not too tedious, and, as I was able to justify Exposure B, the loads were not too high; however, they still added up fast.

The existing chain link fence was actually covered with a much denser mesh with some vinyl signs on it. I was told that the coach needed the mesh to protect the players from being blinded by the sun.

I ended up sistering the existing posts, and was limited only by the size of the existing footings (which were luckily oversized). In a new job, the actually difference between the solid and non-solid wall design - in terms of construction cost - is not that high. My point is - how are you going to make sure no additional covering will be ever installed? I would recommend to play it safe.

--
V. Steve Gordin SE
SGE Consulting Structural Engineers
www.sgeconsulting.com

Larry Hauer wrote:
To All,

I have to design some fencing around a baseball field which will be 40' high with columns at about 11' o.c. The fencing itself will be open chain link type and we will make sure that no covering be put over it. So, my question is: Any advice on designing the pipe columns, (and footings), for wind loading other than using the ASCE requirements with a reduction of surface area due to the open chain link fencing?

Thanks in Advance,

Larry Hauer S.E.

--
David Topete, SE

Re: china high speed rail (OFF-TOPIC)

Andrew,

An architect friend of mine, who retired a few days before his 75th
birthday this year, just got back from a three week visit to China. He
described the visit as one of the most memorable experiences of his
lifetime. One of the events that most impressed him was a ride on the high
speed train.

A few minutes ago I sent you a private post of Chinese shipping
featuring products destined for Wal-Mart. China is also a major power in
development in space.

At the current rate of growth (I believe it's 9% per annum) the rule
of 72 indicates that China's economy will double every 8 years. If it could
keep that up for the rest of the century it would double 11 more times. It
would become 2048 times as big as it is now!! Kind of suggests that the
rest of us need to pull up our sox and get working, doesn't it??

Regards,

H. Daryl Richardson

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Kester" <akester74@gmail.com>
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:46 PM
Subject: re: china high speed rail

> NON-structural engineering post warning:
>
> Now, I am a big proponent of mass transit and high speed rail, and
> personally love train travel. The technological aspects of it are
> exciting and interesting, and I support the initiative conceptually.
> It works well in areas of Europe and Japan, and hopefully one day we
> can get a few lines going here. But something about this does not sit
> right with me, probably because it is China.
>
> The whole thing, especially the press release, reaks of communist
> posturing, just like the entire Beijing Olympics. It also seems
> familiar: North Korea's rocket and nuclear program, Pakistan and India
> having nuclear weapons, and Iran's whole nuclear deal. These are poor
> countries with huge social problems that are putting their carts
> before their horses in an attempt to launch themselves into the 21st
> century. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people in these countries
> live on a few bucks a day in abject poverty.
>
> High speed rail seems like an anti-communism move, almost hypocritical
> from a socialist perspective. It can be extremely expensive and likely
> only affordable by the rich and tourists. I have to think that a
> country with China's population and huge social, economic, and
> environmental issues would be better off for the whole to solve more
> common problems than cutting edge high speed rail technology. Why not
> just drive around the countryside of China in a Porsche with the top
> down with a big china flag on the hood, flipping the bird to all of
> the sustenance farmers in the rice paddies... Let them eat cake?
>
> (Yes, the US has lots of problems which I am aware of, but the article
> was about China. Not picking on China, just their government's
> decision making... Which ours needs picking on too!)
>
> Andrew Kester, PE
> Florida
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

Re: Baseball Filed Fencing

It's all find and dandy if the columns calc out, but be confident that the footings will hold up. If a geotechnical investigation has not been done, make sure that it is.

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Larry Hauer <lhauer@live.com> wrote:

To All,

Thanks for the responses and we plan on putting a big note on our constr. drawings that no signage or covering shall be put over the chain link fencing. Of course they will end up doing it anyway, but I don't want to get this thing too massive, (right now- 8" diam. pipe columns @ 11' o.c. for a 40' high fence, (spliced to 6" diam. @ 20' up). Per CBC/ASCE requirements, I am NOT using a 33% stress increase, which should add a factor of safety in case signage is installed.

Thanks again,

Larry Hauer S.E.

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:52:43 -0700
From: sgordin@sgeconsulting.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Baseball Filed Fencing

Larry,

The last time I worked on a similar project, it was an extension of the existing backstop from the 36 to 48 ft height. I first decided to use the references Tom recommended, but ended up calculating wind loads myself with ASCE 7. The task was not too tedious, and, as I was able to justify Exposure B, the loads were not too high; however, they still added up fast.

The existing chain link fence was actually covered with a much denser mesh with some vinyl signs on it. I was told that the coach needed the mesh to protect the players from being blinded by the sun.

I ended up sistering the existing posts, and was limited only by the size of the existing footings (which were luckily oversized). In a new job, the actually difference between the solid and non-solid wall design - in terms of construction cost - is not that high. My point is - how are you going to make sure no additional covering will be ever installed? I would recommend to play it safe.

--
V. Steve Gordin SE
SGE Consulting Structural Engineers
www.sgeconsulting.com

Larry Hauer wrote:
To All,

I have to design some fencing around a baseball field which will be 40' high with columns at about 11' o.c. The fencing itself will be open chain link type and we will make sure that no covering be put over it. So, my question is: Any advice on designing the pipe columns, (and footings), for wind loading other than using the ASCE requirements with a reduction of surface area due to the open chain link fencing?

Thanks in Advance,

Larry Hauer S.E.

--
David Topete, SE

Re: China's high speed rail

Appreciate your reply. I disagree on certain points but let it go. Regards.

On 10/29/10, Andrew Kester <akester74@gmail.com> wrote:
> Conrad,
> I think a well-developed train system would benefit China greatly, one
> that would interconnect small villages to the large population
> centers, etc. (social issues and problems aside, ie, bring development
> to far-flung rural areas). Like you gave the US as an example when
> this country was first developing its infrastructure.
>
> But the article was about an uber-expensive experimental high speed
> rail that connected two cities, that will be a drop in the bucket in
> terms of passenger volume, and in my opinion was simply for bragging
> rights of a very fast train for a country obviously trying to puff up
> its chest on the world stage. It will not benefit the average person,
> and they cannot afford to build out an entire high speed train system
> throughout the country. Not very communistic when you don't do things
> that benefit the populace. But, maybe I don't understand communism.
> Either way, it is not the bang for your buck you are looking for when
> you want to move MASSIVE amounts of people from point A to B. Regular
> trains would do that.
>
> Avi,
> See above for clarification. I called out a few countries (the
> governments, not the people) with glaring examples of what I am
> talking about. And these were not opinions, these are facts. These are
> countries that clearly are making unintelligible choices in how they
> spend their money with a clear neglect of the common person for the
> advancement of a government goal at the cost of everyday people. It is
> certainly not a critique on the many fine people of all of these
> countries who want a better life for themselves and their family, and
> I am in full support of that. But when countries with very large
> populations who are struggling to feed, clothe and provide shelter for
> their people spend tons of money on things like this, it should be
> criticized.
>
> Even with our basic needs met, here in the US we constantly criticize
> our government's spending, as we should in a healthy democracy. Some
> would say we take the prize in stupid spending!
>
> Anyway, sorry for consuming time on the list for non-structural
> engineering. I am a bit of a transportation engineer at heart.
>
>
>
> Andrew Kester, PE
> Florida
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Please print this email only if it's required. Save Paper, Save
Environment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avi Sharma
Student
Department of Civil Engineering
SRKNEC, Nagpur ,India

RE: Baseball Filed Fencing

To All,

Thanks for the responses and we plan on putting a big note on our constr. drawings that no signage or covering shall be put over the chain link fencing. Of course they will end up doing it anyway, but I don't want to get this thing too massive, (right now- 8" diam. pipe columns @ 11' o.c. for a 40' high fence, (spliced to 6" diam. @ 20' up). Per CBC/ASCE requirements, I am NOT using a 33% stress increase, which should add a factor of safety in case signage is installed.

Thanks again,

Larry Hauer S.E.

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:52:43 -0700
From: sgordin@sgeconsulting.com
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Baseball Filed Fencing

Larry,

The last time I worked on a similar project, it was an extension of the existing backstop from the 36 to 48 ft height. I first decided to use the references Tom recommended, but ended up calculating wind loads myself with ASCE 7. The task was not too tedious, and, as I was able to justify Exposure B, the loads were not too high; however, they still added up fast.

The existing chain link fence was actually covered with a much denser mesh with some vinyl signs on it. I was told that the coach needed the mesh to protect the players from being blinded by the sun.

I ended up sistering the existing posts, and was limited only by the size of the existing footings (which were luckily oversized). In a new job, the actually difference between the solid and non-solid wall design - in terms of construction cost - is not that high. My point is - how are you going to make sure no additional covering will be ever installed? I would recommend to play it safe.

--
V. Steve Gordin SE
SGE Consulting Structural Engineers
www.sgeconsulting.com

Larry Hauer wrote:

To All,

I have to design some fencing around a baseball field which will be 40' high with columns at about 11' o.c. The fencing itself will be open chain link type and we will make sure that no covering be put over it. So, my question is: Any advice on designing the pipe columns, (and footings), for wind loading other than using the ASCE requirements with a reduction of surface area due to the open chain link fencing?

Thanks in Advance,

Larry Hauer S.E.

re: China's high speed rail

Conrad,
I think a well-developed train system would benefit China greatly, one
that would interconnect small villages to the large population
centers, etc. (social issues and problems aside, ie, bring development
to far-flung rural areas). Like you gave the US as an example when
this country was first developing its infrastructure.

But the article was about an uber-expensive experimental high speed
rail that connected two cities, that will be a drop in the bucket in
terms of passenger volume, and in my opinion was simply for bragging
rights of a very fast train for a country obviously trying to puff up
its chest on the world stage. It will not benefit the average person,
and they cannot afford to build out an entire high speed train system
throughout the country. Not very communistic when you don't do things
that benefit the populace. But, maybe I don't understand communism.
Either way, it is not the bang for your buck you are looking for when
you want to move MASSIVE amounts of people from point A to B. Regular
trains would do that.

Avi,
See above for clarification. I called out a few countries (the
governments, not the people) with glaring examples of what I am
talking about. And these were not opinions, these are facts. These are
countries that clearly are making unintelligible choices in how they
spend their money with a clear neglect of the common person for the
advancement of a government goal at the cost of everyday people. It is
certainly not a critique on the many fine people of all of these
countries who want a better life for themselves and their family, and
I am in full support of that. But when countries with very large
populations who are struggling to feed, clothe and provide shelter for
their people spend tons of money on things like this, it should be
criticized.

Even with our basic needs met, here in the US we constantly criticize
our government's spending, as we should in a healthy democracy. Some
would say we take the prize in stupid spending!

Anyway, sorry for consuming time on the list for non-structural
engineering. I am a bit of a transportation engineer at heart.

Andrew Kester, PE
Florida

Re: china high speed rail

Dear Irv,

Modern electric trains like the shinkansen use regenerative braking to return current into the catenary while they brake. This method results in significant energy savings, where-as diesel locomotives (in use on unelectrified railway networks) typically dispose of the energy generated by dynamic braking as heat into the ambient air. And wrt to the data available-

Cars use around 32-36.6 MJ/Lit-capacity 4

Airlines use around 1.4 MJ/passenger-km capacity 49

HSR use around 0.15 MJ/ passenger-km capacity ard 300-400

Difference is quite visible !!

Regards.

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:53 AM, IRV FRUCHTMAN <ifaeng@yahoo.com> wrote:

Fellow Engineers,

High speed trains are wonderful engineering feats, but I don't believe saving energy is one of them. As I recall from my school days: drag force is proportional to speed squared and power (read energy) is proportional to speed cubed. Therefore a train moving at 300 mph, compared to a train at 100 mph, uses (300/100)^3 = 27 times as much energy. If the requirement for the number of trains is reduced by 1/3 – to move the same number of people - then the increased energy use is 27/3 = 9. Therefore, 9 times as much energy is required to move the same people/ load with a high speed train as compared to "low" speed train.

Given a choice, I'll take an airplane.

Irv

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Please print this email only if it's required. Save Paper, Save Environment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avi Sharma
Student
Department of Civil Engineering
SRKNEC, Nagpur ,India

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Re: china high speed rail

Fellow Engineers,

High speed trains are wonderful engineering feats, but I don't believe saving energy is one of them. As I recall from my school days: drag force is proportional to speed squared and power (read energy) is proportional to speed cubed. Therefore a train moving at 300 mph, compared to a train at 100 mph, uses (300/100)^3 = 27 times as much energy. If the requirement for the number of trains is reduced by 1/3 – to move the same number of people - then the increased energy use is 27/3 = 9. Therefore, 9 times as much energy is required to move the same people/ load with a high speed train as compared to "low" speed train.

Given a choice, I'll take an airplane.

Irv

Re: china high speed rail

Fellow Seaint members:

Regarding the warning for posting non-structural topic: I feel that these are some moments on which whole civil engineering becomes proud of. I appreciate that you brought this issue and I will try to refrain in the future about it.

Regarding the topic: I feel we should not get into politics, loans criteria and individual discrimination against countries. High Speed Railways is the one technology which I will prefer in countries like China, India etc. because of massive population, the individual road transport becomes a concert with respect to the environment. When we use High Speed Railways, we use very minimum energy/passenger and when the whole world is taking about Carbon credits etc, I feel this is one of the best technology to control it. These decreases pollution on a larger scale which helps globally, they help connect people throughout the country which brings unite to nation and last bu not the least they make rapid urbanisation restricted. These are the problems of countries like China, India which are densely populated and massive in length.

I still feel that we should appreciate China regarding the fact they have attained a position in HSR. Even California HSR is looking upto Chinese HSR for inspiration and contracts. And to bring different countries like Iran, Pakistan and India(my native country) may bring a strong resistance from my side regarding my country. So, I request everyone not to use such type of examples which may hurt the sentiments.

Regards

Avi Sharma

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Glenn Otto <ggator1256@cox.net> wrote:

Mass transportation means everyone is the same and controlled.

Cars mean individualism and freedom.

High speed rail: communism better than capitalism posturing.

Glenn C. Otto, P.E.
A Structural Engineer, P.C.

"It's a freedom thing, you wouldn't understand"--Glenn Otto

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what
should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better than
liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom,
go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick
the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may
posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
--Samuel Adams

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Kester [mailto:akester74@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 5:47 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: re: china high speed rail

NON-structural engineering post warning:

Now, I am a big proponent of mass transit and high speed rail, and
personally love train travel. The technological aspects of it are
exciting and interesting, and I support the initiative conceptually.
It works well in areas of Europe and Japan, and hopefully one day we
can get a few lines going here. But something about this does not sit
right with me, probably because it is China.

The whole thing, especially the press release, reaks of communist
posturing, just like the entire Beijing Olympics. It also seems
familiar: North Korea's rocket and nuclear program, Pakistan and India
having nuclear weapons, and Iran's whole nuclear deal. These are poor
countries with huge social problems that are putting their carts
before their horses in an attempt to launch themselves into the 21st
century. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people in these countries
live on a few bucks a day in abject poverty.

High speed rail seems like an anti-communism move, almost hypocritical
from a socialist perspective. It can be extremely expensive and likely
only affordable by the rich and tourists. I have to think that a
country with China's population and huge social, economic, and
environmental issues would be better off for the whole to solve more
common problems than cutting edge high speed rail technology. Why not
just drive around the countryside of China in a Porsche with the top
down with a big china flag on the hood, flipping the bird to all of
the sustenance farmers in the rice paddies... Let them eat cake?

(Yes, the US has lots of problems which I am aware of, but the article
was about China. Not picking on China, just their government's
decision making... Which ours needs picking on too!)

Andrew Kester, PE
Florida

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: china high speed rail

Mass transportation means everyone is the same and controlled.

Cars mean individualism and freedom.

High speed rail: communism better than capitalism posturing.

Glenn C. Otto, P.E.
A Structural Engineer, P.C.

"It's a freedom thing, you wouldn't understand"--Glenn Otto

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what
should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better than
liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom,
go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick
the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may
posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
--Samuel Adams

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Kester [mailto:akester74@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 5:47 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: re: china high speed rail

NON-structural engineering post warning:

Now, I am a big proponent of mass transit and high speed rail, and
personally love train travel. The technological aspects of it are
exciting and interesting, and I support the initiative conceptually.
It works well in areas of Europe and Japan, and hopefully one day we
can get a few lines going here. But something about this does not sit
right with me, probably because it is China.

The whole thing, especially the press release, reaks of communist
posturing, just like the entire Beijing Olympics. It also seems
familiar: North Korea's rocket and nuclear program, Pakistan and India
having nuclear weapons, and Iran's whole nuclear deal. These are poor
countries with huge social problems that are putting their carts
before their horses in an attempt to launch themselves into the 21st
century. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people in these countries
live on a few bucks a day in abject poverty.

High speed rail seems like an anti-communism move, almost hypocritical
from a socialist perspective. It can be extremely expensive and likely
only affordable by the rich and tourists. I have to think that a
country with China's population and huge social, economic, and
environmental issues would be better off for the whole to solve more
common problems than cutting edge high speed rail technology. Why not
just drive around the countryside of China in a Porsche with the top
down with a big china flag on the hood, flipping the bird to all of
the sustenance farmers in the rice paddies... Let them eat cake?

(Yes, the US has lots of problems which I am aware of, but the article
was about China. Not picking on China, just their government's
decision making... Which ours needs picking on too!)

Andrew Kester, PE
Florida

RE: china high speed rail

On a more positive note they are constructing railways not highways.

I recollect a few years back the railway technical society of Australasia
(RTSA) mentioning in their monthly newsletter that politicians gain greater
status for opening a 1km stretch of local road, than they do for opening
several hundred kilometres of railway which has the same cost. All kinds of
arguments which favour rail over road, especially for heavy transport and
mass transit systems: and plenty of opposing arguments as well.

Also railways were important to western history, railways opened up the
interiors of large continental nations. As for history of rail in Britain,
it moved from building canals to get coal to industry to building railways,
and in turn the railways brought people from rural communities into the
factory towns. Whilst the Romans built roads where ever they went, the
British built railways. If have a massive country like China, then have
great distances to travel, and really want to keep commuter travel times
below 1 hour, so high speed rail potentially better than say small local
airports. Also consider that there has been criticism of China's growth in
use of cars and the consequent air pollution. So development programmes for
construction of railways and mass transit systems, should may be given a
more positive light.

Geographically early civilisations were built along the banks of rivers,
firstly because water is the source of life, secondly because rivers are
greater for transportation. The reach of the transportation network being
extended by canals, then as mentioned extended still further by railway. Not
just important for transportation, but also for communication. And just as
towns are built along the banks of rivers and canals, such development also
occurs along the sides of railways, as it does roads.

Yes some political posturing. But by constructing railways, they are opening
the country up, and providing opportunity for people to move around the
country, and move from the rural community into the industrial cities. The
tickets maybe expensive, but likely to be more affordable and practical than
say an over night stay, and return the next day by slower trains.

It as also been suggested that if we put as much effort into developing
locomotives as we have into developing the car, then we wouldn't be so
dependent on the car and fossil fuels, and our cities would be more
efficiently laid out. Also better to travel through the landscape and
associated communities than by aircraft over it and miss it.

So I think it is better that they are posturing about trains and railways,
rather than some new car plant and highway.

Regards
Conrad Harrison
B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
Adelaide
South Australia

RE: shell stability

Decades ago in my senior year I took a graduate course on thin shell concrete structures as an elective. I thought it would be fun and interesting. It was neither. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

Joe

Joseph R. Grill, PE

Verde Valley Engineering, PLLC

email: VVEng@cableone.net

From: jadair@shwgroup.com [mailto:jadair@shwgroup.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:45 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: shell stability

I’ll second that. Although, my professor was a real thin-shell concrete guru, and he usually spent a pretty good portion of each class period correcting all the typographical errors in the book. Without someone to help you through that, referring to the book might be at least confusing and possibly dangerous.

-- Joel Adair

SHW Group

Plano, TX

From: Lloyd Pack [mailto:packman90@qwest.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:12 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: shell stability

Steve,

I don't know if this reference meets your ideas of practical, but I used

David P. Billington's book Thin Shell Concrete Structures in Grad

school and really liked it. I thought that the book gave me the theory

and then reduced the concepts to the more practical.

The fifth chapter is on the Analysis of Circular Cylindrical Shells, and

5-5 is on the Solution of The Shallow-Shell Equations.

I hope that helps.

Take Care,

Lloyd Pack

On 27 Oct 2010 at 13:50, Steve Gordin wrote:

> Good afternoon,

> I am looking for a source of Practical analysis of a

> Shallow - Thin - Cylindrical Shell/panel

> under

> Uniform Radial Compression.

> The books I have on the subject turn to be of mostly academic value.

> Can anyone point me in a right direction?

> TIA,

> --

> Steve Gordin SE

RE: shell stability

-- Joel Adair

SHW Group

Plano, TX

From: Lloyd Pack [mailto:packman90@qwest.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 3:12 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: shell stability

Steve,

I don't know if this reference meets your ideas of practical, but I used

David P. Billington's book Thin Shell Concrete Structures in Grad

school and really liked it. I thought that the book gave me the theory

and then reduced the concepts to the more practical.

The fifth chapter is on the Analysis of Circular Cylindrical Shells, and

5-5 is on the Solution of The Shallow-Shell Equations.

I hope that helps.

Take Care,

Lloyd Pack

On 27 Oct 2010 at 13:50, Steve Gordin wrote:

> Good afternoon,

> I am looking for a source of Practical analysis of a

> Shallow - Thin - Cylindrical Shell/panel

> under

> Uniform Radial Compression.

> The books I have on the subject turn to be of mostly academic value.

> Can anyone point me in a right direction?

> TIA,

> --

> Steve Gordin SE

RE: china high speed rail

I support you completely.
You know that Europe, Japan & the USA are all still paying China foreign aid
money???

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Kester [mailto:akester74@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 11:47 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: re: china high speed rail

NON-structural engineering post warning:

Now, I am a big proponent of mass transit and high speed rail, and
personally love train travel. The technological aspects of it are exciting
and interesting, and I support the initiative conceptually. It works well in
areas of Europe and Japan, and hopefully one day we can get a few lines
going here. But something about this does not sit right with me, probably
because it is China.

The whole thing, especially the press release, reaks of communist posturing,
just like the entire Beijing Olympics. It also seems
familiar: North Korea's rocket and nuclear program, Pakistan and India
having nuclear weapons, and Iran's whole nuclear deal. These are poor
countries with huge social problems that are putting their carts before
their horses in an attempt to launch themselves into the 21st century.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of people in these countries live on a few
bucks a day in abject poverty.

High speed rail seems like an anti-communism move, almost hypocritical from
a socialist perspective. It can be extremely expensive and likely only
affordable by the rich and tourists. I have to think that a country with
China's population and huge social, economic, and environmental issues would
be better off for the whole to solve more common problems than cutting edge
high speed rail technology. Why not just drive around the countryside of
China in a Porsche with the top down with a big china flag on the hood,
flipping the bird to all of the sustenance farmers in the rice paddies...
Let them eat cake?

(Yes, the US has lots of problems which I am aware of, but the article was
about China. Not picking on China, just their government's decision
making... Which ours needs picking on too!)

Andrew Kester, PE
Florida

Re: Baseball Filed Fencing

Larry,

The last time I worked on a similar project, it was an extension of the existing backstop from the 36 to 48 ft height. I first decided to use the references Tom recommended, but ended up calculating wind loads myself with ASCE 7. The task was not too tedious, and, as I was able to justify Exposure B, the loads were not too high; however, they still added up fast.

The existing chain link fence was actually covered with a much denser mesh with some vinyl signs on it. I was told that the coach needed the mesh to protect the players from being blinded by the sun.

I ended up sistering the existing posts, and was limited only by the size of the existing footings (which were luckily oversized). In a new job, the actually difference between the solid and non-solid wall design - in terms of construction cost - is not that high. My point is - how are you going to make sure no additional covering will be ever installed? I would recommend to play it safe.

--
V. Steve Gordin SE
SGE Consulting Structural Engineers
www.sgeconsulting.com

Larry Hauer wrote:

To All,

I have to design some fencing around a baseball field which will be 40' high with columns at about 11' o.c. The fencing itself will be open chain link type and we will make sure that no covering be put over it. So, my question is: Any advice on designing the pipe columns, (and footings), for wind loading other than using the ASCE requirements with a reduction of surface area due to the open chain link fencing?

Thanks in Advance,

Larry Hauer S.E.

re: china high speed rail

NON-structural engineering post warning:

(Yes, the US has lots of problems which I am aware of, but the article
was about China. Not picking on China, just their government's
decision making... Which ours needs picking on too!)

Andrew Kester, PE
Florida

Re: Baseball Filed Fencing

On 28 Oct 2010 at 9:02, Larry Hauer wrote:

>
> To All,
>
> I have to design some fencing around a baseball field which will be
> 40' high with columns at about 11' o.c. The fencing itself will be
> open chain link type and we will make sure that no covering be put
> over it. So, my question is: Any advice on designing the pipe columns,
> (and footings), for wind loading other than using the ASCE
> requirements with a reduction of surface area due to the open chain
> link fencing?
>
> Thanks in Advance,
>
> Larry Hauer S.E.
>
>
Hello Larry,

I would also consider the case of the fence being scaled by a bunch
of fans. I've seen times when sporting events have fans storming the
field and they've caused collapses of numerous items around a sports
venue in their efforts to storm the field.

As far as wind loading on the poles. What will happen if the users or
owners of the field begin to hang advertising on the fencing, like the
plywood signs that you sometimes see around Little League fields,
to give credit to the sponsors of the league or specific teams. That
signage will definitely change the "caught" wind.

Take Care,
Lloyd Pack

Re: shell stability

Steve,

I don't know if this reference meets your ideas of practical, but I used

David P. Billington's book Thin Shell Concrete Structures in Grad

school and really liked it. I thought that the book gave me the theory

and then reduced the concepts to the more practical.

The fifth chapter is on the Analysis of Circular Cylindrical Shells, and

5-5 is on the Solution of The Shallow-Shell Equations.

I hope that helps.

Take Care,

Lloyd Pack

On 27 Oct 2010 at 13:50, Steve Gordin wrote:

> Good afternoon,

> I am looking for a source of Practical analysis of a

> Shallow - Thin - Cylindrical Shell/panel

> under

> Uniform Radial Compression.

> The books I have on the subject turn to be of mostly academic value.

> Can anyone point me in a right direction?

> TIA,

> --

> Steve Gordin SE

Re: Baseball Filed Fencing

Larry,

You might want to download "Chain Link Fence Wind Load Guide for the Selection of Line Post and Line Post Spacing" from the Chain Link Fence Manufacturers Institute and, if you have access, ASTM F2631, "Installation of Chain-Link Fence for Outdoor Sports Fields, Sports Courts and Other Recreation Facilities".

Thomas Hunt, S.E.
Fluor

From: Larry Hauer <lhauer@live.com>
To: "Struct. Eng. Assoc." <seaint@seaint.org>, Larry Hauer <lhauer@live.com>
Date: 10/28/2010 08:00 AM
Subject: Baseball Filed Fencing

To All,

I have to design some fencing around a baseball field which will be 40' high with columns at about 11' o.c. The fencing itself will be open chain link type and we will make sure that no covering be put over it. So, my question is: Any advice on designing the pipe columns, (and footings), for wind loading other than using the ASCE requirements with a reduction of surface area due to the open chain link fencing?

Thanks in Advance,

Larry Hauer S.E.

------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are
hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination,
distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon
this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company.
------------------------------------------------------------

Baseball Filed Fencing

Re: shell stability

Daryl,

We thought about it (filling with water would be even more effective).
However, these options are not viable.
In the end, the exterior forms with ties to the steel shell appear to do the trick.

Thanks,

--

V. Steve Gordin SE
SGE Consulting Structural Engineers
www.sgeconsulting.com
877-477-4-SGE

h.d.richardson wrote:

Steve,

        Is it possible to pressurize it? Even 1 psi is 144 psf. Even a small pressure could resist the concrete pressure. Just a thought.

Regards,

H. Daryl Richardson

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Gordin

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:43 PM

Subject: Re: shell stability

Alex,

My problem is a large steel tank being used as a form for its own outer concrete shell with welded ties keeping the shell from buckling during the pour.

Timoshenko's "Theory of Elastic Stability" was my knee-jerk-reaction reference. I also looked into Roark (which actually cites Timoshenko's formulas for arches, not shells), as well as Vol'mir's "Flexible Plates and Shells", "Guide to Stability Design" (Galambos), and several designer's handbooks.

Unfortunately, none of these sources provided a clear-cut solution for a problem at hand. For example, the Timoshenko's formulas (referenced in Roark) do not appear quite applicable to shallow arches (my case), while other formulas that are applicable to such arches lead to quite paradoxical and seemingly theoretical results.

I ended up modeling the shell in 3D FEA, evaluating stresses, analyzing the deflected shapes, and still applying the Timoshenko's arch formulas. The results appear reasonable and corresponding to the field observations.

Thanks,

--
V. Steve Gordin SE
SGE Consulting Structural Engineers
www.sgeconsulting.com
877-477-4-SGE

Alexander Bausk wrote:
Steve,

Roark's Fomulas for Stress and Strain has and appropriate entry under paragraph 13.5, "Thin Shells of Revolution under External Pressure", as well as Table 13.1.

It also has a calculated example thereto all right.

On 27 October 2010 23:50, Steve Gordin <sgordin@sgeconsulting.com> wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> I am looking for a source of Practical analysis of a
>
> Shallow - Thin - Cylindrical Shell/panel
> under
> Uniform Radial Compression.
>
> The books I have on the subject turn to be of mostly academic value.
>
> Can anyone point me in a right direction?
>
> TIA,
> --
> Steve Gordin SE
>
>
>

--
Alexander Bausk
Civil/Structural design & inspection engineer, CAD professional
MSc Structural engineering, Ph.C. Engineering
http://bausk.wordpress.com
ONILAES Lab at PSACEA
Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine
Tel. +38 068 4079692
Fax. +38 0562 470263
bauskas@gmail.com