andyeck1
commented
8 years ago @theoryshaw , We can provide section properties for non-typical shapes, but I do not think it is a good idea for swapping out to another section. For example, the design method and allowables for Z vs C vs Tube are different. If someone swapped a Z for the same property tube, it would not be structurally sufficient. I would rather be asked the question and collaborate on a solution.
@andyeck1 / @KevinZinsmeister
In the future, what do you guys think about providing the pertinent structural properties, such as Section modulus, Moment of Inertia and other pertinent properties when you specify specific member sizes for us?
That way, during design and construction, we don't necessary have to hassle you guys every time to ask if we can switch out one member for another. We can simply look up the member's necessary static properties, and compare them to alternate member to see if that member would be feasible.