] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

["Arvel L. Williams, P.E." <awilliams(--nospam--at)gwsquared.com>]

Mr. Hann,

Yesterday I went to an SMPS meeting.  We discussed the move to design build
and what that was doing for our profession.
My personal take on this is that we have liability phobia to the point that
we have effectively, by our own fears, taken our profession out of any
control in the actual process, other than just providing, in some cases, a
pretty picture.

I also admire his moxy.  Although I'm not a structural engineer by trade.  I
think that any time you see a situation that is not right you need to speak
up.  One thing in all of this discussion about sealing and such, is that
licensure is that we are to protect the public health and safety.

About 5 years ago, I got to spend a few hours with Ralph Peck.  One
questions I asked him was How he viewed the changes in our profession.
Basically, his response was that engineers were trying to hard to be lawyers
and not being engineers.  WE ARE BEING PAID TO HELP AND OCCASIONALLY MAKE
DECISIONS FOR THE OWNER.  WHEN WE DON'T MAKE THOSE DECISIONS AND PROVIDE
SPECIFIC GUIDANCE, THEN WE CHEAPEN OUR PROFESSION.

'Nuff Said.

Arvel
-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan(--nospam--at)poa02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 3:46 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: 16d Common vs 16d Sinker vs 16d Short


There is the way it ought to be and the way it is. As a plan checker you are
now in a nasty situation because you have been too attentive:(.  Some
engineers will argue that you need to make the builders use what is
specified
while others would modify how they were designing when they know what the
builders are using and the builders will probably go berserk when you
mention
this. I admire your moxy.



-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Grinstead [mailto:Gary.Grinstead(--nospam--at)ci.stockton.ca.us]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:22 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: 16d Common vs 16d Sinker vs 16d Short

It has come to my attention that virtually all houses in my area are using
16d sinkers instead of the 16d commons typically specified on the plans.
Additionally in some instances 16d shorts are being used.  The nail sizes
are
as follows:

16d common = 3-1/2" x 0.162"  diameter
16d sinker = 3-1/4" x 0.148" diameter
16d short = 3-1/4" x 0.131" diameter

There is no way I'd accept a 16d short which has less than 70% of the
capacity of the 16d common.  My question is about the 16d sinker which has
about 84% capacity.  Is the general feeling that a combination of (1) factor
of safety on capacity, (2) conservative live loads, and (3) additional
nailing (calc'd to 3.4 nails --- use 4 nails) will make up for the shortfall
or is this something you'd call the contractor on?

Gary Grinstead, SE
Plancheck Engineer
City of Stockton, CA



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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(--nospam--at)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(--nospam--at)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(--nospam--at)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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********