Structural Engineering: 2007-08-26

Saturday, September 1, 2007

RE: Anchor Bolts in Fatigue

Use the F 1554 and reference ASCE "Design of Anchor Bolts in Petromhemicai
Facilities". I would be inclined to go with the 55 ksi anchor rod and
galvanized steel. This document contains the rules for anchor rod
pretensioning.

If galvanizing can't be done, go to the ASTM A 193 series in SS, but work
with a metalurgist to avoid galling issues. With stainless steel, I like to
use Neverseeze.

Regards,
Harold Sprague

>From: "Deke Black" <deke.black@nishkiandean.com>
>Reply-To: <seaint@seaint.org>
>To: <seaint@seaint.org>
>Subject: Anchor Bolts in Fatigue
>Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:57:45 -0700
>
>I have a few questions about specifying anchor bolts that will be
>subjected to fatigue loads. Hopefully somebody has some experience and
>can help me.
>
>
>
>My first question, I was going to specify A449 threaded rod because I
>know A449's properties are similar to A325, or Grade 8 bolts, which are
>commonly used for fatigue (and have limiting stresses based on the
>number of cycles). Is anyone aware of limiting stresses for fatigue
>loads of either F1554 Gr.105 or A354 Gr. BD?
>
>
>
>Secondly, there is going to be a pretension in the bolt (I believe 125%
>of the fatigue loading). The manufacturer of the equipment is calling
>for there not to be a bond between the anchor bolt and the concrete in
>the top 7" of embedment (from the underside of the base plate down). It
>was my understanding that you should not have the bond for the full
>length of the anchor bolt, and to develop the pretension in the head (or
>bearing plate) at the bottom of the anchor bolt. It seems that you
>would have a problem keeping the pretension over time if the lower
>portion of the bolt bonds to the concrete. Also, what is the best way
>to keep the concrete and the shaft of the anchor bolt from bonding?
>I've read to grease the bolt, but I've also heard not to. I also heard
>of using a bond breaker (the same as used for forms) and of putting on
>electrical tape around the bolt. Are any of those the "best" method, or
>are there any that are better?
>
>
>
>Last, I need a method of corrosion protection. I don't want to hot dip
>galvanize because the bolts are high-strength and are subject to
>fatigue. Would the best method be a paint that contains zinc - and if
>so, can anyone point me in the right direction for the specification of
>such a paint?
>
>
>
>Thanks for your help!
>
>
>
>Deke Black
>
>deke.black@nishkiandean.com
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get the device you want, with the Hotmail® you love.

http://www.windowsmobile.com/hotmailmobile?ocid=MobileHMTagline_1

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Another Reference needed

Thanks to all the people who replied. I now have some research to do.
Gary Hodgson

Alex C. Nacionales wrote:
> This used to be my college textbook:
>
> Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
> By : Andrew McCarthy
>
>
> This books discusses the 60 degree aproximation for
> estimating soil pressures below a footing.
> and also has formulas to solve Stress increase in Soils below a
> foundation due to foundation loading using:
>
> Boussinesq formula----for homogeneous soils
> Westergaard formula--layered soils.
>
>
> Alex C. Nacionales
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc."
> <ghodgson@bellnet.ca>
> To: <seaint@seaint.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Another Reference needed
>
>
> I am hoping I can jump on the band wagon here. (That is not a very
> gooood analogy). I am looking for a reference on the effect of higher
> footings close to existing footings. One of my customers is supplying a
> 5 ton crane and runway to be installed in an existing building. The
> engineer for the building owner is insisting that the runway columns be
> placed midway between the existing columns so as to avoid any
> super-imposition of loads on to existing footings. My customer is
> stating, with my support, that the bearing pressure from the new crane
> column is reduced considerably (with a large column bearing plate) by
> the time the additional pressure reaches the underside of the existing
> footings (here all footings exposed to freezing have to be at least 4 ft
> below grade. The building owner is on my customer's side in this
> dispute-he does not want more columns fouling up his floor space. I feel
> comfortable with what we are proposing but I want to be able to quote
> some references on this topic. Any help would be appreciated and thanks
> in advance for your trouble.
> Gary Hodgson
>
>
> IRV FRUCHTMAN wrote:
>> Dennis:
>> A book I've found helpful and not expensive is:
>> "Design of Shallow Foundations" by Samuel French, ASCE
>> Press. But its paperback and the print is small. Good Luck,
>> Irv
>>> I'm looking for a back to basic soils or foundation
>>> design manual to help me
>>> work out the algorithms that I need to write the
>>> spreadsheet. I think I
>>> understand how to find the center of mass based on
>>> the load distributions
>>> but would like to compare it against a text. My
>>> foundation design manuals
>>> that I used in school seem more than complicated and
>>> I am looking for
>>> something fairly straight forward.
>>>
>>>
>>> If I would prefer, I would also like the text to
>>> cover other types of
>>> foundations; continuous wall foundations; friction
>>> piles, spread footings
>>> that are used installed below an existing foundation
>>> (remodeling situation);
>>> distribution of shear from eccentric loading
>>> conditions where new
>>> foundations are doweled or added to the existing
>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please post your favorite references for foundation
>>> design. I think the
>>> Retaining wall reference published by Huge Brooks is
>>> the best I've seen and
>>> I use this as a primer to refresh my memory on
>>> retaining wall design, but
>>> for the other conditions I am seeking a text rather
>>> than a reference for a
>>> computer program that will do the work for me.
>>>
>>> One of the problems with relying on computer
>>> software that I take for
>>> granted because I write most of my own tools is
>>> writing one that you have
>>> been used to designing by shortcut (for example a
>>> grade beam that takes the
>>> moment from each end at the base of a moment frame).
>>> I've designed these
>>> using a half page or less shortcut, but I want to
>>> restore my understanding
>>> of the basics as I have always done with code
>>> programs such as MultiLat™
>>> that assisted me to understand what was in the mind
>>> of the code writer while
>>> I was recreating the spreadsheet.
>>>
>>>
>>> At nearly sixty years old, I am not too proud to
>>> want to return to the
>>> basics and admit that I forgot some of my elemental
>>> skills. Help me restore
>>> my memory by suggesting the reference that you use
>>> when you need to do an
>>> analysis manually that you have not done for a long
>>> time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Dennis
>>>
>>>
>>> Dennis S. Wish, PE
>>>
>>> California Professional Engineering – C 41250 Exp
>>> 03/31/09
>>>
>>> Structural Engineering Consultant
>>>
>>> La Quinta California
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database:
>>> 269.12.8/973 -
>>> Release Date: 8/25/2007
>>> 5:00 PM
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with
>> Yahoo! FareChase.
>> http://farechase.yahoo.com/
>>
>> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>> * 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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: You might be a structural engineer, if .

Here in Ontario, collections are relatively easy for jobs requiring a
building permit. Site review or observation is mandatory and every
owner has to sign a "form of commitment to site review" in which he has
to commit to have site reviews performed and the engineers who are doing
site review have to also sign the form. With new customers, it is my
policy to not sign off on the job until I am paid or assured of
payment. The municipalities can get really snarky if they don't get
their piece of (cover their collective butt) paper.

My problem with "engineering" is the red tape these days. I spend more
time through the day talking to people, filling in forms (see above),
writing invoices, doing site reviews and writing up the reports, etc,
than engineering. Consequently, as a one man show, I have to work
additional hours to get the engineering done. It's not just me-another
engineer commented to me unsolicited, that you work hard so you can get
some money and time to enjoy yourself, but then you don't have the time
to take off.

Enough crying, it's Saturday morning and I am in the office to get some
work done without any interruptions.
Gary

Marlou Rodriguez wrote:
> I agree,
>
> The only part of my job that I do not like is trying to collect from
> people that try to take their time from paying. I use a service that
> collects from them and they charge me a very small fee to do so. My
> success rate in collecting has been pretty good since I started using
> the service. I will be happy to forward the information to anyone if
> they email me privately.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Marlou Rodriguez, S.E.
>
> MBRodriguez Engineering Inc.
>
> 2355 Oakland Road, Suite 14
>
> San Jose, CA 95131
>
> Tel: (408) 432-4866
>
> Cel: (408) 761-5013
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dfisher@fpse.com [mailto:dfisher@fpse.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 7:33 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: You might be a structural engineer, if .
>
> Paul:
>
> I don't think its disatisfaction with the career, life or income, its
> that
> I spend FAR TOO MUCH time chasing money i.e., clients that won't pay.
>
>
> My engineers (I think) are pretty happy. They are paid about 25% above
> market, have great benefits, flexible work hours and pretty cool (again,
> I
> think) projects to work on.
>
> They have all the fun while I have all the worry.
>
> dlf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Hello Stan,
>>
>>
>>
>> Great to hear from you, you restore my faith.
>>
>>
>>
>> From one of the other apparently isolated engineers who is happy with
>> the career, life, and income....
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Feather PE, SE
>>
>> pfeather@SE-Solutions.net
>>
>> www.SE-Solutions.net
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:52 PM
>> To: SEAINT Listserv
>> Subject: You might be a structural engineer, if ...
>>
>>
>>
>> In recent weeks, I have been somewhat troubled by several posts and
>> threads that I believe have been overly critical of the profession of
>> structural engineering. What follows is my alternate perspective,
>>
> with
>
>> apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.
>>
>>
>>
>> You might be a (happy/productive/successful) structural engineer, if
>>
> ...
>
>>
>> 1. You take considerable pride in being a structural engineer.
>>
> In
>
>> fact, you view structural engineering as one of the "highest callings"
>> imaginable.
>>
>> 2. You understand that a typical structural engineer plays a
>>
> larger
>
>> role in public safety than nearly anyone else, and you strive to
>> practice accordingly.
>>
>> 3. You view structural engineering as a career, not as a job.
>> Moreover, you view structural engineering as a profession, not simply
>>
> as
>
>> an occupation.
>>
>> 4. You consistently place ethics, integrity, and quality above
>>
> any
>
>> and all business pressures.
>>
>> 5. You strive to team effectively with those in other professions
>> and treat them as respected peers, but you make all structural
>> engineering decisions independently.
>>
>> 6. You take considerable pride in the tangible, constructed
>>
> results
>
>> of your efforts.
>>
>> 7. For the most part, you truly love your work and genuinely wake
>> up each day looking forward to going to your place of employment.
>>
>> 8. You typically work somewhat in excess of 40 hours/week because
>> you want to, and you couldn't care less about "the clock".
>>
>> 9. You expect to be fairly compensated with a salary and bonus
>> based on the value of what you accomplish, not with a wage based on
>>
> the
>
>> hours that you spend.
>>
>> 10. You understand and accept the obligation to eventually give
>> something back to the profession of structural engineering through
>> financial contributions, active participation in professional
>> organizations, or some other means.
>>
>> I created this list in an hour or so and made no attempt to massage
>>
> it.
>
>> Some of the words could undoubtedly be improved, and other
>> attributes/attitudes might very well be worthy of inclusion.
>> Nevertheless, based on my experience as a happy, productive, and
>> successful structural engineer, I firmly believe in the validity and
>> importance of the ten points above.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Stan R. Caldwell, P.E.
>>
>> Richardson, Texas
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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:
> *
> *

> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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:
> *
> *

> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Friday, August 31, 2007

Re: You might be a structural engineer, if .

Marlou,

Pass it along to me please. I've got a client who's been stiffing me for months in the south bay.

TIA
-gm

On 8/31/07, Marlou Rodriguez <mbrodrig@mbrodriguez.com> wrote:

I agree,

The only part of my job that I do not like is trying to collect from
people that try to take their time from paying.  I use a service that
collects from them and they charge me a very small fee to do so.  My
success rate in collecting has been pretty good since I started using
the service.  I will be happy to forward the information to anyone if
they email me privately.

Thanks.

Marlou Rodriguez, S.E.

MBRodriguez Engineering Inc.

2355 Oakland Road, Suite 14

San Jose, CA 95131

Tel: (408) 432-4866

Cel: (408) 761-5013

-----Original Message-----
From: dfisher@fpse.com [mailto:dfisher@fpse.com]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 7:33 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: You might be a structural engineer, if .

Paul:

I don't think its disatisfaction with the career, life or income, its
that
I spend FAR TOO MUCH time chasing money i.e., clients that won't pay.

My engineers (I think) are pretty happy. They are paid about 25% above
market, have great benefits, flexible work hours and pretty cool (again,
I
think) projects to work on.

They have all the fun while I have all the worry.

dlf

> Hello Stan,
>
>
>
> Great to hear from you, you restore my faith.
>
>
>
> From one of the other apparently isolated engineers who is happy with
> the career, life, and income....
>
>
>
> Paul Feather PE, SE
>
> pfeather@SE-Solutions.net
>
> www.SE-Solutions.net
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:52 PM
> To: SEAINT Listserv
> Subject: You might be a structural engineer, if ...
>
>
>
> In recent weeks, I have been somewhat troubled by several posts and
> threads that I believe have been overly critical of the profession of
> structural engineering.  What follows is my alternate perspective,
with
> apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.
>
>
>
> You might be a (happy/productive/successful) structural engineer, if
...
>
>
>
> 1.      You take considerable pride in being a structural engineer.
In
> fact, you view structural engineering as one of the "highest callings"
> imaginable.
>
> 2.      You understand that a typical structural engineer plays a
larger
> role in public safety than nearly anyone else, and you strive to
> practice accordingly.
>
> 3.      You view structural engineering as a career, not as a job.
> Moreover, you view structural engineering as a profession, not simply
as
> an occupation.
>
> 4.      You consistently place ethics, integrity, and quality above
any
> and all business pressures.
>
> 5.      You strive to team effectively with those in other professions
> and treat them as respected peers, but you make all structural
> engineering decisions independently.
>
> 6.      You take considerable pride in the tangible, constructed
results
> of your efforts.
>
> 7.      For the most part, you truly love your work and genuinely wake
> up each day looking forward to going to your place of employment.
>
> 8.      You typically work somewhat in excess of 40 hours/week because
> you want to, and you couldn't care less about "the clock".
>
> 9.      You expect to be fairly compensated with a salary and bonus
> based on the value of what you accomplish, not with a wage based on
the
> hours that you spend.
>
> 10.  You understand and accept the obligation to eventually give
> something back to the profession of structural engineering through
> financial contributions, active participation in professional
> organizations, or some other means.
>
> I created this list in an hour or so and made no attempt to massage
it.
> Some of the words could undoubtedly be improved, and other
> attributes/attitudes might very well be worthy of inclusion.
> Nevertheless, based on my experience as a happy, productive, and
> successful structural engineer, I firmly believe in the validity and
> importance of the ten points above.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Stan R. Caldwell, P.E.
>
> Richardson, Texas
>
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

--
-gm

RE: You might be a structural engineer, if .

I agree,

The only part of my job that I do not like is trying to collect from
people that try to take their time from paying. I use a service that
collects from them and they charge me a very small fee to do so. My
success rate in collecting has been pretty good since I started using
the service. I will be happy to forward the information to anyone if
they email me privately.

Thanks.

Marlou Rodriguez, S.E.

MBRodriguez Engineering Inc.

2355 Oakland Road, Suite 14

San Jose, CA 95131

Tel: (408) 432-4866

Cel: (408) 761-5013

-----Original Message-----
From: dfisher@fpse.com [mailto:dfisher@fpse.com]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 7:33 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: You might be a structural engineer, if .

Paul:

I don't think its disatisfaction with the career, life or income, its
that
I spend FAR TOO MUCH time chasing money i.e., clients that won't pay.

My engineers (I think) are pretty happy. They are paid about 25% above
market, have great benefits, flexible work hours and pretty cool (again,
I
think) projects to work on.

They have all the fun while I have all the worry.

dlf

> Hello Stan,
>
>
>
> Great to hear from you, you restore my faith.
>
>
>
> From one of the other apparently isolated engineers who is happy with
> the career, life, and income....
>
>
>
> Paul Feather PE, SE
>
> pfeather@SE-Solutions.net
>
> www.SE-Solutions.net
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:52 PM
> To: SEAINT Listserv
> Subject: You might be a structural engineer, if ...
>
>
>
> In recent weeks, I have been somewhat troubled by several posts and
> threads that I believe have been overly critical of the profession of
> structural engineering. What follows is my alternate perspective,
with
> apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.
>
>
>
> You might be a (happy/productive/successful) structural engineer, if
...
>
>
>
> 1. You take considerable pride in being a structural engineer.
In
> fact, you view structural engineering as one of the "highest callings"
> imaginable.
>
> 2. You understand that a typical structural engineer plays a
larger
> role in public safety than nearly anyone else, and you strive to
> practice accordingly.
>
> 3. You view structural engineering as a career, not as a job.
> Moreover, you view structural engineering as a profession, not simply
as
> an occupation.
>
> 4. You consistently place ethics, integrity, and quality above
any
> and all business pressures.
>
> 5. You strive to team effectively with those in other professions
> and treat them as respected peers, but you make all structural
> engineering decisions independently.
>
> 6. You take considerable pride in the tangible, constructed
results
> of your efforts.
>
> 7. For the most part, you truly love your work and genuinely wake
> up each day looking forward to going to your place of employment.
>
> 8. You typically work somewhat in excess of 40 hours/week because
> you want to, and you couldn't care less about "the clock".
>
> 9. You expect to be fairly compensated with a salary and bonus
> based on the value of what you accomplish, not with a wage based on
the
> hours that you spend.
>
> 10. You understand and accept the obligation to eventually give
> something back to the profession of structural engineering through
> financial contributions, active participation in professional
> organizations, or some other means.
>
> I created this list in an hour or so and made no attempt to massage
it.
> Some of the words could undoubtedly be improved, and other
> attributes/attitudes might very well be worthy of inclusion.
> Nevertheless, based on my experience as a happy, productive, and
> successful structural engineer, I firmly believe in the validity and
> importance of the ten points above.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Stan R. Caldwell, P.E.
>
> Richardson, Texas
>
>

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: You might be a structural engineer, if .

Paul:

I don't think its disatisfaction with the career, life or income, its that
I spend FAR TOO MUCH time chasing money i.e., clients that won't pay.

My engineers (I think) are pretty happy. They are paid about 25% above
market, have great benefits, flexible work hours and pretty cool (again, I
think) projects to work on.

They have all the fun while I have all the worry.

dlf

> Hello Stan,
>
>
>
> Great to hear from you, you restore my faith.
>
>
>
> From one of the other apparently isolated engineers who is happy with
> the career, life, and income....
>
>
>
> Paul Feather PE, SE
>
> pfeather@SE-Solutions.net
>
> www.SE-Solutions.net
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:52 PM
> To: SEAINT Listserv
> Subject: You might be a structural engineer, if ...
>
>
>
> In recent weeks, I have been somewhat troubled by several posts and
> threads that I believe have been overly critical of the profession of
> structural engineering. What follows is my alternate perspective, with
> apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.
>
>
>
> You might be a (happy/productive/successful) structural engineer, if ...
>
>
>
> 1. You take considerable pride in being a structural engineer. In
> fact, you view structural engineering as one of the "highest callings"
> imaginable.
>
> 2. You understand that a typical structural engineer plays a larger
> role in public safety than nearly anyone else, and you strive to
> practice accordingly.
>
> 3. You view structural engineering as a career, not as a job.
> Moreover, you view structural engineering as a profession, not simply as
> an occupation.
>
> 4. You consistently place ethics, integrity, and quality above any
> and all business pressures.
>
> 5. You strive to team effectively with those in other professions
> and treat them as respected peers, but you make all structural
> engineering decisions independently.
>
> 6. You take considerable pride in the tangible, constructed results
> of your efforts.
>
> 7. For the most part, you truly love your work and genuinely wake
> up each day looking forward to going to your place of employment.
>
> 8. You typically work somewhat in excess of 40 hours/week because
> you want to, and you couldn't care less about "the clock".
>
> 9. You expect to be fairly compensated with a salary and bonus
> based on the value of what you accomplish, not with a wage based on the
> hours that you spend.
>
> 10. You understand and accept the obligation to eventually give
> something back to the profession of structural engineering through
> financial contributions, active participation in professional
> organizations, or some other means.
>
> I created this list in an hour or so and made no attempt to massage it.
> Some of the words could undoubtedly be improved, and other
> attributes/attitudes might very well be worthy of inclusion.
> Nevertheless, based on my experience as a happy, productive, and
> successful structural engineer, I firmly believe in the validity and
> importance of the ten points above.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Stan R. Caldwell, P.E.
>
> Richardson, Texas
>
>

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Thursday, August 30, 2007

RE: You might be a structural engineer, if .

Hello Stan,

Great to hear from you, you restore my faith.

From one of the other apparently isolated engineers who is happy with the career, life, and income….

Paul Feather PE, SE

pfeather@SE-Solutions.net

www.SE-Solutions.net

From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:52 PM
To: SEAINT Listserv
Subject: You might be a structural engineer, if …

In recent weeks, I have been somewhat troubled by several posts and threads that I believe have been overly critical of the profession of structural engineering. What follows is my alternate perspective, with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy.

You might be a (happy/productive/successful) structural engineer, if …

1. You take considerable pride in being a structural engineer. In fact, you view structural engineering as one of the "highest callings" imaginable.

2. You understand that a typical structural engineer plays a larger role in public safety than nearly anyone else, and you strive to practice accordingly.

3. You view structural engineering as a career, not as a job. Moreover, you view structural engineering as a profession, not simply as an occupation.

4. You consistently place ethics, integrity, and quality above any and all business pressures.

5. You strive to team effectively with those in other professions and treat them as respected peers, but you make all structural engineering decisions independently.

6. You take considerable pride in the tangible, constructed results of your efforts.

7. For the most part, you truly love your work and genuinely wake up each day looking forward to going to your place of employment.

8. You typically work somewhat in excess of 40 hours/week because you want to, and you couldn't care less about "the clock".

9. You expect to be fairly compensated with a salary and bonus based on the value of what you accomplish, not with a wage based on the hours that you spend.

10. You understand and accept the obligation to eventually give something back to the profession of structural engineering through financial contributions, active participation in professional organizations, or some other means.

I created this list in an hour or so and made no attempt to massage it. Some of the words could undoubtedly be improved, and other attributes/attitudes might very well be worthy of inclusion. Nevertheless, based on my experience as a happy, productive, and successful structural engineer, I firmly believe in the validity and importance of the ten points above.

Best regards,

Stan R. Caldwell, P.E.

Richardson, Texas

big box remodeling

Donald:

Concrete tilt-up is a unique structural animal to me.

Quick panel erection during construction suggests very little re-bar from the footing to the concrete tilt-up wall panel at the base. Shear wall design and damage from earthquake events like Northridge have changed dramatically the structural design for ‘big box stores’.

Dowels from the panel into the slab are the primary base shear reinforcement for in-plane seismic forces. The weight of the slab-on grade is supporting the tilt-up concrete wall during an earthquake for in-plane forces. This is more prevalent in recently designed tilt-ups and in seismic Zone 4. Not as much when I worked on them in the 1970’s. Other types of construction normally carry the in-plane forces directly into concrete footings. Older tilt-ups should be evaluated by a structural engineer (like IDS) for seismic response when a major upgrade is being done for architectural items. IDS reviewed a tilt-up after the Northridge earthquake that was destroyed when the tilt-up concrete walls fell outward, and the furniture inside the building held up the roof structure. This was a failure of ‘out-of-plane’ resistance elements. Also very common in old big box stores. Your clients would do well to review these items as well as others which have caused severe damage.

Respectfully,

Integrated Design Services, Inc.

Bob Freeman

Architect, EIT

(949) 387-8500

RE: Slab connection to Exterior Walls

Yes, the dowels at the slab level aid in reducing the braced height of a masonry wall, especially as you’ve described. Designing a masonry wall for out-of-plane forces, using WSD, the unbraced wall height was limited to 30*t_wall. So, your big box of 8” reinforced masonry could go a max of 20 feet unbraced. Most times the foundations are much lower than the slab.

From: Donald Bruckman [mailto:bruckmandesign@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:14 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Slab connection to Exterior Walls

Yes, then; dowels. Picture the base of an 8” masonry wall sitting on a footing. At the slab level, ‘L’ shaped #4 dowels @ 24” o.c. are installed so that they poke out through holes in the masonry, (or aren’t installed). That is the connection to which I refer.

Now, I fundamentally understand the base connection need for tilt-up, but what purpose does the dowel serve in a masonry structure? Is it stiffening to laterally reinforce the footing? Are we worried about the footing bending normal to the wall? Do I need to think of this as a base level diaphragm connection or something?

From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmse4603@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:45 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Slab connection to Exterior Walls

The base connection to the slab is necessary for tilt-up walls, but not if there are dowel bars up from the footing into the wall like in CMU. The situation description more than slightly confusing (because of the number of conditions) ... when you say ties, I would say dowels if I'm understanding right, ties to me are shear reinforcement. :-)

Closure Pours around the perimeter are always a good idea for slab on-grades for shrinkage. It's the best way for New Tilt-up wall panels to be locked in at the foundation for out of plane loads as well.

-gm

On 8/30/07, Donald Bruckman <bruckmandesign@verizon.net> wrote:

We do a lot of big box retail work. In the course of that work, we get
involved in remodeling existing big boxes into new, squeaky clean big boxes.

Here's the question.

We run into a myriad of various conditions at the perimeter wall.  We see
rebar ties coming out of the wall into concrete with wire mesh or no slab
reinforcement at all;  We find cold joints at the slab perimeter with no
rebar wall ties at all, we find full rebar slabs tied to rebar wall ties,
etc. We've seen just about every combination you can come up with.

My questions are these:

1.      Is this kind of base connection ALWAYS necessary?

2.      Is it dependent on any particular structural design which would
allow it NOT to occur, such as a grade beam array?

3.      If I find no connection at all at an existing wall, should I worry?

4.      Why do engineers sometimes show turned down footing to bear the slab
on the footing below at this connection?

5.      If I cut an existing tie, would there be some way of knowing if it
was a necessary connection or not?  (I ask this because I sometimes find a
lot of structural details that are habitual and not necessarily borne of
necessity, because if it becomes a problem, the engineer will say something
like, "Oh, forget it then, that's just our typical detail, you don't really
need it.")

After we resolve these questions, I run into the second half of the problem.
If I pour a new slab on grade that is tied to the entire perimeter wall
structure via these ties, I have to pay a lot of attention to shrinkage
cracking.

A fully reinforced slab tied to the four sides of a big box introduces all
kinds of (I assume) rebar distributed stress into the slab as it cures and
shrinks.  My empirical conclusion to this is that the ties to the walls
induce tension stresses that sort of "prestress" the slab and make all other
additions in stress to it a potential cracking problem.

I find that nearly any rigid element passing through the slab or butted up
against the slab (pipes, etc.) in these situations can induce enough
concentrated stress to create a crack.

I've gone so far as to introduce pourstrips around the perimeter to allow
the main slab to "float" while it cures, and that seems to help a lot.

The bottom line of this, I guess is crack control.  The more I understand of
the reasoning behind this critical joint in a building system, the better
armed I am to control the finished product.

Thanks.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

--
-gm

RE: Railings on Stairs - OSHA 1910.23 & the Florida Building Cod

I would venture that unless you are working on a project that has specific OSHA compliance mandates, that there is no legal liability roadway for you to get to the OSHA requirement. In other words, the State adopts a building code, you comply with that code. PERIOD. Absent a clause in the state code which explicitly guides you to compliance to OSHA, (such as, for instance, the clauses that adopt ASTM or ASME, etc.) then your responsibility defaults to the state code and ONLY that. It is the State that is required to make THEIR statutes match up with Federal Law if and when necessary, hence the many references that make the hard-tied legal connection.

But, having said this, be careful. There are a lot of spots where such a clause could be hiding in a state code that you can’t find, (which is to say, don’t care to waste your time trying to find).

From: Robert Kazanjy [mailto:rkazanjy@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:04 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Railings on Stairs - OSHA 1910.23 & the Florida Building Cod

OSHA (two sections) & FBC are all inconsistent

The U of Michigan study cites 33" +/- 3" (30 to 36")

I guess the question which code does he want to violate?

& by how much?

I would put a little more faith in a study cited by OSHA than a single passage in a code section.

Oh well, the joys of design by code.

cheers
Bob

On 8/29/07, John Sieszycki <jsieszycki@yahoo.com > wrote:

FBC required 34" min. and 38" max.
Using 34" +- 1" seems to be risky. I will use 35" with
not less than 34" during installation.

John W. Sieszycki

--- Robert Kazanjy < rkazanjy@gmail.com> wrote:

> David-
>
> Check this out
>
>
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24960
>
>
> Of course the interpretation is from 2004 AND it is
> a construction
> requirement question about
>
> §1926.1052(c)(6) and 1926.1052(c)(7)
>
> 1926.1052
> (6) The height of handrails shall be not more than
> 37 inches (94 cm) nor
> less than 30 inches (76 cm) from the upper surface
> of the handrail to the
> surface of the tread, in line with the face of the
> riser at the forward edge
> of the tread.
>
> The FBC requirement of 34 to 38 seems biased
> slightly towards the upper
> range of comfortable hand rail heights.
>
> In the OSHA interpretation letter they cite a U of
> Michigan study that
> suggests 33" is optimum with allowable range of +/-
> 3"
>
> but they also mention that section in the
> interpretation addresses only the
> standards applicable to the construction industry
>
> and that General Industry (29 CFR Part 1910) needs
> an additional
> interpretation
>
> So there even appears to be a conflict within OSHA
>
>
> My suggestion:  go with  a rail height of  34"  with
> a installation
> tolerance of +/- 1" & call it good.
>
>
> cheers
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> On 8/27/07, M. David Finley, P.E., P.A. <
> davidfinley@bizsea.rr.com> wrote:
>
>  OSHA 1910.23 (e) (2)  requires railings on stairs
> to be "not more than 34"
> > nor less than 30" inches from the upper surface of
> top rail to surface of
> > tread in line with face of riser at forward edge
> of tread"
> >
> > The Florida Building Code (2005 Supplement)
> 1009.11.1 requires "Handrail
> > height, measured above stair tread nosings, or
> finish surface of ramp slope
> > shall be uniform, not less than 34" and not more
> than 38 inches"  It also
> > allows an exception:  "Handrails for stairs not
> required to be accessible
> > that form part of a guardrail may be 42" high"
> >
> >
> > Therefore, for an industrial building in Florida,
> it appears to me that I
> > have to have the stair railing at exactly 34" or I
> will be in violation
> > of either the OSHA or FBC requirements.  Has
> anyone had to deal with this
> > before?  Am I mis-interpreting these sections?  Is
> there an exception to the
> > FBC for industrial facilities?
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > David Finley
> > M. David Finley, P.E., P.A.
> > 2086 SW Main Boulevard - Suite 111
> > Lake City, FL  32025
> > 386-752-6400
> >
> >
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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: Slab connection to Exterior Walls

From: Gerard Madden, SE [mailto:gmse4603@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:45 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Slab connection to Exterior Walls

On 8/30/07, Donald Bruckman <bruckmandesign@verizon.net> wrote:

--
-gm

Re: Slab connection to Exterior Walls

On 8/30/07, Donald Bruckman <bruckmandesign@verizon.net> wrote:

We do a lot of big box retail work. In the course of that work, we get
involved in remodeling existing big boxes into new, squeaky clean big boxes.

Here's the question.

We run into a myriad of various conditions at the perimeter wall.  We see
rebar ties coming out of the wall into concrete with wire mesh or no slab
reinforcement at all;  We find cold joints at the slab perimeter with no
rebar wall ties at all, we find full rebar slabs tied to rebar wall ties,
etc. We've seen just about every combination you can come up with.

My questions are these:

1.      Is this kind of base connection ALWAYS necessary?

2.      Is it dependent on any particular structural design which would
allow it NOT to occur, such as a grade beam array?

3.      If I find no connection at all at an existing wall, should I worry?

4.      Why do engineers sometimes show turned down footing to bear the slab
on the footing below at this connection?

5.      If I cut an existing tie, would there be some way of knowing if it
was a necessary connection or not?  (I ask this because I sometimes find a
lot of structural details that are habitual and not necessarily borne of
necessity, because if it becomes a problem, the engineer will say something
like, "Oh, forget it then, that's just our typical detail, you don't really
need it.")

After we resolve these questions, I run into the second half of the problem.
If I pour a new slab on grade that is tied to the entire perimeter wall
structure via these ties, I have to pay a lot of attention to shrinkage
cracking.

A fully reinforced slab tied to the four sides of a big box introduces all
kinds of (I assume) rebar distributed stress into the slab as it cures and
shrinks.  My empirical conclusion to this is that the ties to the walls
induce tension stresses that sort of "prestress" the slab and make all other
additions in stress to it a potential cracking problem.

I find that nearly any rigid element passing through the slab or butted up
against the slab (pipes, etc.) in these situations can induce enough
concentrated stress to create a crack.

I've gone so far as to introduce pourstrips around the perimeter to allow
the main slab to "float" while it cures, and that seems to help a lot.

The bottom line of this, I guess is crack control.  The more I understand of
the reasoning behind this critical joint in a building system, the better
armed I am to control the finished product.

Thanks.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

--
-gm

Slab connection to Exterior Walls

We do a lot of big box retail work. In the course of that work, we get
involved in remodeling existing big boxes into new, squeaky clean big boxes.

Here's the question.

We run into a myriad of various conditions at the perimeter wall. We see
rebar ties coming out of the wall into concrete with wire mesh or no slab
reinforcement at all; We find cold joints at the slab perimeter with no
rebar wall ties at all, we find full rebar slabs tied to rebar wall ties,
etc. We've seen just about every combination you can come up with.

My questions are these:

1. Is this kind of base connection ALWAYS necessary?

2. Is it dependent on any particular structural design which would
allow it NOT to occur, such as a grade beam array?

3. If I find no connection at all at an existing wall, should I worry?

4. Why do engineers sometimes show turned down footing to bear the slab
on the footing below at this connection?

5. If I cut an existing tie, would there be some way of knowing if it
was a necessary connection or not? (I ask this because I sometimes find a
lot of structural details that are habitual and not necessarily borne of
necessity, because if it becomes a problem, the engineer will say something
like, "Oh, forget it then, that's just our typical detail, you don't really
need it.")

After we resolve these questions, I run into the second half of the problem.
If I pour a new slab on grade that is tied to the entire perimeter wall
structure via these ties, I have to pay a lot of attention to shrinkage
cracking.

A fully reinforced slab tied to the four sides of a big box introduces all
kinds of (I assume) rebar distributed stress into the slab as it cures and
shrinks. My empirical conclusion to this is that the ties to the walls
induce tension stresses that sort of "prestress" the slab and make all other
additions in stress to it a potential cracking problem.

I find that nearly any rigid element passing through the slab or butted up
against the slab (pipes, etc.) in these situations can induce enough
concentrated stress to create a crack.

I've gone so far as to introduce pourstrips around the perimeter to allow
the main slab to "float" while it cures, and that seems to help a lot.

The bottom line of this, I guess is crack control. The more I understand of
the reasoning behind this critical joint in a building system, the better
armed I am to control the finished product.

Thanks.

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: 2006 IBC Wind Load question

Matthew,

Ouch! Having reviewed that progressive collapse proposal, I can say that
anyone who has to design to it has my deepest sympathies. I think NJ
DCA chaired the committee that put the proposal together, which probably
explains why they pushed it forward even though it was rejected in the
ICC code development cycle.

Not that I have a problem with designing and detailing for basic
structural integrity and structural continuity, of course. But that
proposal went way beyond anything currently required by any code (I'm
thinking ACI 318 particularly with the requirements stemming from Ronan
Point). It was just about taking the DOD/GSA requirements for a complete
progressive collapse analysis (including removing columns, bearing
walls, etc. to see the structural behavior) that you'd do for a
high-risk structure (like an embassy) and applying it to *every* type of
building, even your basic two-story condo or retail building.

NCSEA has been working (along with the various material groups: ACI,
AISC, NCMA, AF&PA) on a counter-proposal that I understand is much more
grounded in reality and actual risk, and better reflects the current
structural integrity language and requirements from ACI, AISC, ASCE 7
and other existing standards.

Gary

Gary J. Ehrlich, PE
Program Manager, Structural Codes & Standards
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
1201 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005
ph: 202-266-8545 or 800-368-5242 x8545
fax: 202-266-8369
gehrlich@nahb.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart, Matthew [mailto:mstuart@schoordepalma.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 7:59 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: 2006 IBC Wind Load question

Scott,

I have found in my experience that local officials are more likely to
dictate snow loads that are higher than Code minimums as opposed to
wind.

Even stranger than that, in NJ, the Dept. of Consumer Affairs (plan
reviewing agency for public facilities) has mandated the use of a
Progressive Collapse design criteria that has been rejected twice by the
ICC.

Matthew Stuart

Re: Another Reference needed

This used to be my college textbook:

Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
By : Andrew McCarthy

This books discusses the 60 degree aproximation for
estimating soil pressures below a footing.
and also has formulas to solve Stress increase in Soils below a foundation
due to foundation loading using:

Boussinesq formula----for homogeneous soils
Westergaard formula--layered soils.

Alex C. Nacionales

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc." <ghodgson@bellnet.ca>
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: Another Reference needed

I am hoping I can jump on the band wagon here. (That is not a very
gooood analogy). I am looking for a reference on the effect of higher
footings close to existing footings. One of my customers is supplying a
5 ton crane and runway to be installed in an existing building. The
engineer for the building owner is insisting that the runway columns be
placed midway between the existing columns so as to avoid any
super-imposition of loads on to existing footings. My customer is
stating, with my support, that the bearing pressure from the new crane
column is reduced considerably (with a large column bearing plate) by
the time the additional pressure reaches the underside of the existing
footings (here all footings exposed to freezing have to be at least 4 ft
below grade. The building owner is on my customer's side in this
dispute-he does not want more columns fouling up his floor space. I feel
comfortable with what we are proposing but I want to be able to quote
some references on this topic. Any help would be appreciated and thanks
in advance for your trouble.
Gary Hodgson

IRV FRUCHTMAN wrote:
> Dennis:
> A book I've found helpful and not expensive is:
> "Design of Shallow Foundations" by Samuel French, ASCE
> Press. But its paperback and the print is small. Good Luck,
> Irv
>> I'm looking for a back to basic soils or foundation
>> design manual to help me
>> work out the algorithms that I need to write the
>> spreadsheet. I think I
>> understand how to find the center of mass based on
>> the load distributions
>> but would like to compare it against a text. My
>> foundation design manuals
>> that I used in school seem more than complicated and
>> I am looking for
>> something fairly straight forward.
>>
>>
>> If I would prefer, I would also like the text to
>> cover other types of
>> foundations; continuous wall foundations; friction
>> piles, spread footings
>> that are used installed below an existing foundation
>> (remodeling situation);
>> distribution of shear from eccentric loading
>> conditions where new
>> foundations are doweled or added to the existing
>> etc.
>>
>>
>> Please post your favorite references for foundation
>> design. I think the
>> Retaining wall reference published by Huge Brooks is
>> the best I've seen and
>> I use this as a primer to refresh my memory on
>> retaining wall design, but
>> for the other conditions I am seeking a text rather
>> than a reference for a
>> computer program that will do the work for me.
>>
>> One of the problems with relying on computer
>> software that I take for
>> granted because I write most of my own tools is
>> writing one that you have
>> been used to designing by shortcut (for example a
>> grade beam that takes the
>> moment from each end at the base of a moment frame).
>> I've designed these
>> using a half page or less shortcut, but I want to
>> restore my understanding
>> of the basics as I have always done with code
>> programs such as MultiLat™
>> that assisted me to understand what was in the mind
>> of the code writer while
>> I was recreating the spreadsheet.
>>
>>
>> At nearly sixty years old, I am not too proud to
>> want to return to the
>> basics and admit that I forgot some of my elemental
>> skills. Help me restore
>> my memory by suggesting the reference that you use
>> when you need to do an
>> analysis manually that you have not done for a long
>> time.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>> Dennis S. Wish, PE
>>
>> California Professional Engineering – C 41250 Exp
>> 03/31/09
>>
>> Structural Engineering Consultant
>>
>> La Quinta California
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database:
>> 269.12.8/973 -
>> Release Date: 8/25/2007
>> 5:00 PM
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
> FareChase.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com/
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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

> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********