Saturday, December 15, 2007

Re: Santa Monica Seminar

I was at that seminar too, and I have to agree whole heartedly that this was a very good learning experience, in fact I would say it was better than the  last seminar I went to in Long Beach, in September.  Yes it was well organized, well presented, and covered the highlights of the code change.    This is the type of seminars we need in the future, in the Los Angeles area, if possible.

Thank you Ben and Martin.

Andy Vidikan, PE


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Gordin <sgordin@sgeconsulting.com>
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 5:36 am
Subject: Santa Monica Seminar

List,
 
Yesterday many structural engineers attended the 2007 CBC seminar (structural) at the City of Santa Monica. 
 
The seminar was perfectly organized and flawlessly executed. The presentations by Ben Yousefi and Martin Johnson were right what they should be: intense - but quite entertaining and informal, concise - but touching the entire pertinent portion of the new code, informative - and concentrating on the most crucial areas, comprehensive - and pushing toward self-learning.  I  think that most of about 100 engineers who attended the morning and the afternoon sessions will not need additional seminars on the subject.
 
The price cannot be beaten, and the quality of education was, I would say, at least not lower than at some of those pricey affair$$$ offered by the industry.  In other words, the seminar was definitely worth spending 2.5 hours in traffic on the way back :).   
 
It was also good to put faces behind some email addresses, and see some old friends.
 
Bottom line - thank you, Ben.   
 
Happy Holidays,
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 

More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

Santa Monica Seminar

List,
 
Yesterday many structural engineers attended the 2007 CBC seminar (structural) at the City of Santa Monica. 
 
The seminar was perfectly organized and flawlessly executed. The presentations by Ben Yousefi and Martin Johnson were right what they should be: intense - but quite entertaining and informal, concise - but touching the entire pertinent portion of the new code, informative - and concentrating on the most crucial areas, comprehensive - and pushing toward self-learning.  I  think that most of about 100 engineers who attended the morning and the afternoon sessions will not need additional seminars on the subject.
 
The price cannot be beaten, and the quality of education was, I would say, at least not lower than at some of those pricey affair$$$ offered by the industry.  In other words, the seminar was definitely worth spending 2.5 hours in traffic on the way back :).   
 
It was also good to put faces behind some email addresses, and see some old friends.
 
Bottom line - thank you, Ben.   
 
Happy Holidays,
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 

Friday, December 14, 2007

RE: Shamefully Off-Topic: Carbon Christmas

I got 6 out of 10, what's a passing score?

From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 10:12 AM
To: SEAINT Listserv
Subject: Shamefully Off-Topic: Carbon Christmas

Recently, several of you have written passionately about sustainable design, reducing your carbon footprint, and similar nonsense.
 
Before you embarrass yourselves any further, I would urge you to take this Global Warming Test:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Then settle down with a good book (printed on real paper) before a roaring fire and ...

Have a Very Merry Christmas!

Politically Incorrect Stan

RE: New and hopefully useful web site

I resemble that remark!

:o)

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Consulting Structural Engineers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gaines, David [mailto:David.Gaines@hdrinc.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 10:24 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: New and hopefully useful web site
>
<snip>

>And yes Bill, we're starting to sound like a bunch of old farts.


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Shamefully Off-Topic: Carbon Christmas

Actually very related to structural engineering. I'm preparing some welding specs and in view of global warming, I'm changing the CVN's to 40 ft. lb. @ 140° F.

Bob Garner

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Wright [mailto:chrisw@skypoint.com]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 10:39 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Shamefully Off-Topic: Carbon Christmas


On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Stan Caldwell wrote:

> Before you embarrass yourselves any further, I would urge you to
> take this Global Warming Test:
before really embarrassing yourself study up for the 'test' by
reading an interview with Myron Ebell who frequently speaks for big
oil on the very same topic. <http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/

features/2007/05/skeptic200705>. The article is a side-by-side
comparison of fossil fuel partisans and actual scientists--you can
take your pick. If you get curious about how the fossil fuel business
forms its arguments try <http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/

global_warming/exxon_report.pdf> Then take the 'test.'

This really isn't an off-topic question for engineers, although maybe
a bit far afield from building structural design.

Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
chrisw@skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen.
.......................................| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania
1864)
http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw/

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Shamefully Off-Topic: Carbon Christmas

On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Stan Caldwell wrote:

> Before you embarrass yourselves any further, I would urge you to
> take this Global Warming Test:
before really embarrassing yourself study up for the 'test' by
reading an interview with Myron Ebell who frequently speaks for big
oil on the very same topic. <http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/

features/2007/05/skeptic200705>. The article is a side-by-side
comparison of fossil fuel partisans and actual scientists--you can
take your pick. If you get curious about how the fossil fuel business
forms its arguments try <http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/

global_warming/exxon_report.pdf> Then take the 'test.'

This really isn't an off-topic question for engineers, although maybe
a bit far afield from building structural design.

Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
chrisw@skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen.
.......................................| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania
1864)
http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw/

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

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

Holiday wishes

Dear List Participants,

 

Just want to wish you all the best for the holidays.

 

Over the years I’ve enjoyed reading the list and have learned a few things along the way. I’ve been happy to have responded with (hopefully) productive replies to questions related to my field, and have enjoyed a little fun as well.

 

Thanks and best regards,

Tom

 

Thomas J. Cummings, PE

Manager - Bridge Design Practice

Gannett Fleming Engineers and Architects, P.C.

One Penn Plaza, Suite 2222

250 West 34th Street

New York, NY 10119

P:  (212) 967-9833 Ext. 5244

F:  (212) 268-6684

E:  tcummings@gfnet.com

 

ASCE and its New Orleans Levees Failure Investigation

Dear Seaint friends: I thought you might be interested in the following
e-mail regarding investigation of tragic failure of the levees in New
Orleans. More information on ASCE levees failure investigation ,
including Professor Ray Seed's letter to the ASCE President criticizing
it can be found at http://www.levees.org.


Please forward it to others who might be interested. Best wishes and
have a very happy holiday season.
A. Astaneh, Ph.D., P.E., Professor,
(http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh)
Dept of Civil and Env. Engineering and
Center for Catastrophic Risk Management
University of California, Berkeley


------ Forwarded Message
*From: *"S. Rosenthal" <levees@levees.org>
*Reply-To: *<Levees@Levees.org>
*Date: *Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:14:46 -0500 (EST)
*To: *
*Subject: *Levees.Org rejects ASCE demand to stop showing video



Please join us at a short press conference as we reject a demand by the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to stop distributing our
student-made video spoofing an overly cozy relationship between the ASCE
and the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Two prominent law firms, Adams and Reese LLP, and Cooley Godward Kronish
LLP, have offered to defend us pro bono. Representatives from Adams &
Reese will be on hand at the press conference.

Councilmember Stacy Head has confirmed participation.

Fri Dec 14 at 10:30am
147 Stafford Place
Lakeview home, one block from 17th Street Canal

Since the debut of our cute, but on-target video, ASCE has confirmed the
launch of both an internal and an external ethics investigation into
allegations similar to the ones we raise in our video.

*Please come support Levees.Org as we show citizens here and everywhere
that ASCE shall not bully and intimidate a fledgling non-profit and high
school children out of exercizing their First Amendment rights.
*
If you haven't already, please sign a letter to the President of ASCE
demanding that the results of the ethics investigations be made public!

Click here:
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1625/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=324

Thank you!
Sandy Rosenthal
Executive Director, Levees.Org


You can read the complete story here.
http://www.neworleanscitybusiness.com/uptotheminute.cfm?recid=14372&userID=0&referer=dailyUpdate

<http://www.neworleanscitybusiness.com/uptotheminute.cfm?recid=14372&userID=0&referer=dailyUpdate>

Note from Sandy: If you received this and you are outside the Greater
New Orleans area, we apologize!



Levees.Org is your source for information about levees and flood
protection in New Orleans and nationwide.

* why an 8/29 investigation?
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=qDdThxzuMNDUjSLdYtjPCyoRzQAmgcYB>
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=qDdThxzuMNDUjSLdYtjPCyoRzQAmgcYB>

* factsheet
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=WAzGvYSOzpOT4QdSd0EOWCoRzQAmgcYB>
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=WAzGvYSOzpOT4QdSd0EOWCoRzQAmgcYB>

* news media resources
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=uMJlzah9WuwI%2FNEsGhyW7SoRzQAmgcYB>
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=uMJlzah9WuwI%2FNEsGhyW7SoRzQAmgcYB>

* watch videos
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=toSrdboBX6Yx579MoeouQyoRzQAmgcYB>
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=toSrdboBX6Yx579MoeouQyoRzQAmgcYB>

* printable downloads
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=UcjAUaHrixcj1y4D6pWsRCoRzQAmgcYB>
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=UcjAUaHrixcj1y4D6pWsRCoRzQAmgcYB>

* poster order page
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=p9AT3Hz0iDa094OaPxtOggM8xQzWfpN4>
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=p9AT3Hz0iDa094OaPxtOggM8xQzWfpN4>

* web tools
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=8lpIy3qvXns2EDr%2BjxTEtyoRzQAmgcYB>
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=8lpIy3qvXns2EDr%2BjxTEtyoRzQAmgcYB>

* make a donation
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=BjU4FM8Hq5%2FYhwVQX8FteyoRzQAmgcYB>
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=BjU4FM8Hq5%2FYhwVQX8FteyoRzQAmgcYB>


If you no longer wish to receive emails from us, please use the
following link to change your subscription settings: levees.org/remove
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=zGE2PzHuKlzTCSoB0osNfCoRzQAmgcYB>
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=zGE2PzHuKlzTCSoB0osNfCoRzQAmgcYB>

Main Page
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=akr3PQi3G8Ckj3%2BDK7OSnCoRzQAmgcYB>
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=akr3PQi3G8Ckj3%2BDK7OSnCoRzQAmgcYB>
- Contact
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=gkTTo53tA6TUjSLdYtjPCyoRzQAmgcYB>
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=gkTTo53tA6TUjSLdYtjPCyoRzQAmgcYB>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Shamefully Off-Topic: Carbon Christmas

Stan,

 

Excellent! 

 

I just put down my CFC aerosol can long enough to check the link. J

 

A very Merry Christmas to you and yours, and have a safe and happy New Year.

 

Warm regards,

Also politically incorrect Tom

 

P.S. I very much enjoy reading (real) books too!

 

Thomas J. Cummings, PE

Manager - Bridge Design Practice

Gannett Fleming Engineers and Architects, P.C.

One Penn Plaza, Suite 2222

250 West 34th Street

New York, NY 10119

P:  (212) 967-9833 Ext. 5244

F:  (212) 268-6684

E:  tcummings@gfnet.com

 


From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:12 PM
To: SEAINT Listserv
Subject: Shamefully Off-Topic: Carbon Christmas

 

Recently, several of you have written passionately about sustainable design, reducing your carbon footprint, and similar nonsense.

 

Before you embarrass yourselves any further, I would urge you to take this Global Warming Test:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Then settle down with a good book (printed on real paper) before a roaring fire and ...

Have a Very Merry Christmas!

Politically Incorrect Stan

RE: New and hopefully useful web site

Chris, Jerry, Bill, Mark and all,

I think you guys are interpreting Richard Hess' comments in the wrong
way. I know Richard fairly well and I don't think he's criticizing
Chris' idea so much as making another point. Richard has offered us some
sage advice about constructability, load path, practical design and our
responsibility to produce drawings that are sufficient to show the
engineering intent. I have to say, as an engineer who has done just a
bit of forensic engineering and seen my share of sketchy, vague
structural drawings, his advice is well founded.

Yes, I know Richard Hess. He's a wise and experienced engineer. I think
Bill Allen probably knows him too. And yes Bill, we're starting to sound
like a bunch of old farts.
Happy Holidays. Good Cheer.
Dave Gaines

BTW, Good idea Chris. I look forward to your efforts.


-----Original Message-----
From: chris.slater@gmail.com [mailto:chris.slater@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Chris Slater
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 6:38 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: New and hopefully useful web site

I wanted to address a few of the issues that have been raised.

Casey wrote:

"Compared with the IT industry, the structural engineering concepts can
be highly complex. Structural design is not based on the kind of "rule
of thumb" concepts that are common in a lot of other industries.

For these reasons, I believe posting ones' sample calculations online,
is not appropriate."

While I take your point, and understand where you're coming from, I
feel like I need to point out that the examples that are out there
aren't put there as complete solutions that you just grab and blindly
use. They're out there so that people can learn from one another.
Bits of code to illustrate a concept, not entire programs that can be
grabbed and blindly put into place.

In the same way, the goal of the site is not to put examples out there
that can be pulled and used blindly. Nor do I think that would happen,
since in order to actually do anything with them, someone still has to
have a valid engineering license.

However, I do see a huge benefit in putting examples out there that can
be studied and discussed within the community, so that we can all learn.
I also think that such examples would be beneficial to students who are
trying to grasp some of the concepts, and can't afford design manuals
that generally cost at least a hundred dollars each.

On a personal note - Richard, while I'm not sure if this was your intent
or not, I felt like your response was a bit of an insult to me
for attempting something like this. So you know, I grew up in
construction. I recently finished building my own home. While I don't
begin to think that I know it all (on the contrary, I have a LOT to
learn), I also don't think that wanting to collaborate with other
engineers is the same as wanting to steal their spreadsheets and use
them blindly. Nor do I think that using computers to assist in the
design process equates to sloppiness.

Thanks,

Chris

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

Shamefully Off-Topic: Carbon Christmas

Recently, several of you have written passionately about sustainable design, reducing your carbon footprint, and similar nonsense.
 
Before you embarrass yourselves any further, I would urge you to take this Global Warming Test:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Then settle down with a good book (printed on real paper) before a roaring fire and ...

Have a Very Merry Christmas!

Politically Incorrect Stan

Re: Tilt-Up Wall Submittal Review

Sending the submittal back with a note that it was not requested and thus was not reviewed is a good way to go.

If you feel you want an informational submittal, i.e. one that you do not return, ask yourself why you want it. A possible reason could be you want something in the records showing that the contractor actually had a licensed engineer design the lifting. Another reason might be that you need some information to verify weights placed on your structure are consistent with your design.

If you just want a record for the file do not check the loads. Otherwise what you are saying is that your practice is to review part of the submittal but not tell anybody. What do you do if you find something?

The key thing is to have a consistent policy and to implement it consistently. You also must let others know what you will do, such as not review the submittal. If something goes wrong the courts will in general not find you liable as long as you did what you said you would do and what your contract requires. On the other hand if it comes out that you really reviewed these submittals they can use this as an opening to suggest that you took on a duty and did not fulfill your obligation to competently perform that work. In this case open up your check book.

In the case of the loads and assumptions used for the tilt-up design, I see no reason to check these items. No good is done.

Mark Gilligan

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: New and hopefully useful website

I guess I don't see why this kind of thing would be anything
but helpful.



>the structural engineering concepts can be highly
complex<


This is another reason for this kind of site. It doesn't seem like reading example
calculations would encourage quick, dirty and cheap solutions any more than
reading a text book.



I have to substitute the word "may" for the word
"shall" in the following statement in order to make it true:


>structural engineering design shall require sound
judgment, adequate time for review and contemplation.< and in any case, understanding how to do a
calculation is an argument for it, rather than against it.



This site proposed to do the same thing (and in the same
way) as the SEAOC Seismic Design Manuals, help educate us. This is a field that takes a lot of
self-education and this kind of thing can only help.



Mark Johnson

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Tilt-Up Wall Submittal Review

I think that if you do not return a submittal in a timely fashion with a stamp or letter saying “Rejected” or “Returned without Review” then your action or inaction may be interpreted as “Approval” by the contractor. Even language stating that you have reviewed the submittal and have no objections is the same as “Approval” according to the engineering publications and case studies I have read.

 

Approving a submittal does not necessarily mean that you designed the system depicted; it does not mean that you are responsible for the system depicted; it does not mean that there are no errors in the submittal. Approval means that you have reviewed the submittal as it relates to your contractual responsibilities and your construction documents and that the submittal does not conflict with your design criteria. It is probably a good idea to clarify that your approval does not relieve the contractor of their responsibilities for means, methods, coordination, code compliance, job-site safety, etc. It is also a good idea to require that the contractor review and approve the submittals prior to forwarding them to you for your approval.

 

Christopher Banbury, PE

President

 

Ark Engineering, Inc.

PO Box 10129, Brooksville, FL 34603

22 North Broad ST, Brooksville, FL 34601

Phone: (352) 754-2424

Fax: (352) 754-2412

www.arkengineering.net

 


From: Rich Lewis [mailto:seaint04@lewisengineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:01 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Tilt-Up Wall Submittal Review

 

I received a large package of information for a tilt-up wall building I designed.  The submittal was produced by Dayton Superior.  It includes a lot of general information on tilt wall erection and then the insert and bracing details for the wall panels.  I wondering how a submittal like this is typically handled by other engineers.  This is basically a “means and method of construction” submittal.   I didn’t design the lifting procedure, sequence, anchors, bracing, etc. 

 

I don’t think I should “approve” it.  I don’t think I should put a typical shop drawing stamp on it.  I’m considering sending it back with a letter stating I looked at it, I don’t take exception to anything and remind the contractor that they are responsible for means and methods of construction and I take no responsibility for the lifting and placing design.

 

Is that how others handle it, or is should I look at this differently?

 

Thanks.

 

Rich

 

RE: Tilt-Up Wall Submittal Review

Excellent response!

 

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.

ALLEN DESIGNS

Consulting Structural Engineers
 
V (949) 248-8588 F(949) 209-2509

-----Original Message-----
From: Jake Watson [mailto:jake.watson1@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:16 PM
To:
seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: Tilt-Up Wall Submittal Review

 

How about no comment at all.  Did you ask for the submittal?  If they submitted a drawing showing OSHA fall protection systems, would you comment on it?  I don't see why you would make any comment (or even keep record that you received it).  Simply return it with no comments.  At most, say you received but have not reviewed it because it is means and methods.  If you acknowledge that you have "looked it over", you can potentially be held accountable for the content.  Maybe even the lifting procedures.

If you want to look at it, make sure you fully understand it the way you would any other shop drawing.  If you are not prepared to get that involved, simply return it without any comment and stay away.  It should be crystal clear you have no responsibility or over site for means and methods.

I have designed crane picks for contractors (although not tilt).  I generally work with the contractor and rarely get the EOR involved unless there is some glaring omission on the job.  If the contractor has specific questions, let him ask them.  Otherwise I suggest you just return the package and let him do his job.

Jake Watson, S.E.
Salt Lake City, UT

P.S. Then again, maybe I am just too cynical.  It could be the contractor is trying to be pro-active and keep you in the loop regarding his procedures.  Good luck!

On Dec 13, 2007 7:58 PM, Rich Lewis <seaint04@lewisengineering.com> wrote:

I received a large package of information for a tilt-up wall building I designed.  The submittal was produced by Dayton Superior.  It includes a lot of general information on tilt wall erection and then the insert and bracing details for the wall panels.  I wondering how a submittal like this is typically handled by other engineers.  This is basically a "means and method of construction" submittal.   I didn't design the lifting procedure, sequence, anchors, bracing, etc. 

 

I don't think I should "approve" it.  I don't think I should put a typical shop drawing stamp on it.  I'm considering sending it back with a letter stating I looked at it, I don't take exception to anything and remind the contractor that they are responsible for means and methods of construction and I take no responsibility for the lifting and placing design.

 

Is that how others handle it, or is should I look at this differently?

 

Thanks.

 

Rich

 

 

RE: New and hopefully useful web site

I wanted to address a few of the issues that have been raised.

Casey wrote:

"Compared with the IT industry, the structural engineering concepts
can be highly complex. Structural design is not based on the kind of
"rule of thumb" concepts that are common in a lot of other industries.

For these reasons, I believe posting ones' sample calculations online,
is not appropriate."

While I take your point, and understand where you're coming from, I
feel like I need to point out that the examples that are out there
aren't put there as complete solutions that you just grab and blindly
use. They're out there so that people can learn from one another.
Bits of code to illustrate a concept, not entire programs that can be
grabbed and blindly put into place.

In the same way, the goal of the site is not to put examples out there
that can be pulled and used blindly. Nor do I think that would
happen, since in order to actually do anything with them, someone
still has to have a valid engineering license.

However, I do see a huge benefit in putting examples out there that
can be studied and discussed within the community, so that we can all
learn. I also think that such examples would be beneficial to
students who are trying to grasp some of the concepts, and can't
afford design manuals that generally cost at least a hundred dollars
each.

On a personal note - Richard, while I'm not sure if this was your
intent or not, I felt like your response was a bit of an insult to me
for attempting something like this. So you know, I grew up in
construction. I recently finished building my own home. While I
don't begin to think that I know it all (on the contrary, I have a LOT
to learn), I also don't think that wanting to collaborate with other
engineers is the same as wanting to steal their spreadsheets and use
them blindly. Nor do I think that using computers to assist in the
design process equates to sloppiness.

Thanks,

Chris

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: New and hopefully useful website

OK, Guys.
What we have here is a guy that has offered his labors and property to provide a service and resource for this industry.  He made his only mistake in sharing a little background of himself.  Let's give him his due appreciation, or shut up.  If you don't want to use it, don't.
But this tangential ranting about your personal views, while possibly belonging on this forum, don't belong with this thread.  If you want to P & M, do so in a thread that the rest of us can easily filter.
JDCoombs.

Re: Tilt-Up Wall Submittal Review

I presume you designed it for in-place loads.  Those reinforcing shops, and insert layouts, need to be reviewed by you.
Your spec should define that all lifting methods shall be the responsibility of the contractor, and panels shall be designed for lifting forces by a licensed PE and stamped.  "All assumptions and loads shall be clearly noted... yadda yadda"  "Designs shall be submitted to the ENGINEER for record purposes only and will not be reviewed." 
It's a good idea to look at the loads and assumptions, then put it away.  Do not return or mark any copies.
 
JDCoombs

>>> On 12/13/2007 at 8:58 PM, "Rich Lewis" <seaint04@lewisengineering.com> wrote:

I received a large package of information for a tilt-up wall building I designed.  The submittal was produced by Dayton Superior.  It includes a lot of general information on tilt wall erection and then the insert and bracing details for the wall panels.  I wondering how a submittal like this is typically handled by other engineers.  This is basically a "means and method of construction" submittal.   I didn't design the lifting procedure, sequence, anchors, bracing, etc. 

 

I don't think I should "approve" it.  I don't think I should put a typical shop drawing stamp on it.  I'm considering sending it back with a letter stating I looked at it, I don't take exception to anything and remind the contractor that they are responsible for means and methods of construction and I take no responsibility for the lifting and placing design.

 

Is that how others handle it, or is should I look at this differently?

 

Thanks.

 

Rich

 

RE: New and hopefully useful web site

OK, Guys.
What we have here is a guy that has offered his labors and property to provide a service and resource for this industry.  He made his only mistake in sharing a little background of himself.  Let's give him his due appreciation, or shut up.  If you don't want to use it, don't.
But this tangential ranting about your personal views, while possibly belonging on this forum, don't belong with this thread.  If you want to P & M, do so in a thread that the rest of us can easily filter.
 
JDCoombs.

>>> On 12/13/2007 at 4:33 PM, "Richard L. Hess" <RLHess@HessEng.com> wrote:
Has anyone thought of going out to some construction sites to see how
contractors are trying to straighten out some of those computer created
"solutions" so the building will stand up?
I suggest spending more time in the real (as opposed to virtual) world to
define how the structure should be designed instead of collecting someone
else's calculations, spreadsheets, etc. that may or not apply.
But then why should I worry.  My business is with the ever increasing stock
of buildings needing repair or retrofit that are presented to me because of
the lack of proper detailing.  I don't know of anything that fell down
because the calculations were ten, twenty or fifty percent off.  But I know
of a lot of serious problems due to a missing link in the load path because
the details were not properly developed on the drawing or where the engineer
did not take redundancy or constuctability into account because he/she did
not understand what goes on out at the construction site.
Richard Hess


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph R. Grill [mailto:jrgrill@cableone.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:47 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: New and hopefully useful web site


Chris,
Great Idea!


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Slater" <chris@jdwylieengineering.com>
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: New and hopefully useful web site


> Hi All,
>
> I've been in the engineering field for a few years now, having spent
> the six years prior working in the IT industry.  While I enjoy
> structural engineering much more, I have often been frustrated by the
> lack of good examples available online.  If I want to solve a computer
> problem, or learn how to do something new, there are many, many
> resources available online.  If I want to learn how a structural
> calculation is done, I have to spend a fair bit of money for either a
> book, or a seminar.
>
> I had the idea a while back to try something out.  I wanted to create
> a web site where engineers could share examples with one another.  At
> our company, we have a folder on our server that is full of PDF scans
> we've made of calculations that we think others might find
> instructive.  What I'm hoping to do is to create a web site that
> allows the engineering community to do the same.
>
> So I found a structure to build on, and put a site together -
> www.examplecalcs.com.   The way it works is that examples can be
> submitted, along with a short description and "tags" that help
> identify it in a search.  These tags might be things like "Seismic",
> "2001 IBC", "Wood Braced Frame", or what have you.  You can specify as
> many as you see fit.   You can submit a link to either a calculation
> that you have done, or one on another site that you think others might
> find useful.
>
> Once a calculation is submitted, the other users on the site are able
> to review it and "vote" it up or down, based on it's usefulness and
> accuracy.  There's also the ability to post comments, in case
> clarification is needed.
>
> Finally, I knew that some folks don't have a place to upload and share
> an example from, so I put together an e-mail handler.  If you send an
> e-mail to "incoming@examplecalcs.com" with the subject of "Example"
> and a PDF attached, the PDF will be saved to the site (at
> www.examplecalcs.com/hosted/).  You'll reply a reply e-mail with a
> link to your PDF that you can then submit from the regular site.
>
> The site is free.  I'm not making any money from it, but I do hope to
> learn a lot.  Please try it out and send any feedback my way.  Also,
> if you think it's a useful site, please pass it on to others.
>
> Chris Slater, PE
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1177 - Release Date: 12/7/2007
1:11 PM



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

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Re: Uplift on Roof Sheathing - "Pull Through" Resistance

Jerold,

Check out Stanley-Bostich's "Sheather Plus" nails--they have oversize
heads and ringed shanks. I saw a video of an OSB panel attached to framing
with these nails and tested with a
vacuum applied to the sheathing side. The nails held the
OSB--failure occurred when the framing exploded....

I would require these nails in the situation you describe.

Just Google "Sheather Plus", or start at
http://www.bostitch.com/xhtml/literature/AD4101_SheatherPlus_Broch.pdf

Thor Matteson, SE
www.shearwalls.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

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

Re: Tilt-Up Wall Submittal Review

How about no comment at all.  Did you ask for the submittal?  If they submitted a drawing showing OSHA fall protection systems, would you comment on it?  I don't see why you would make any comment (or even keep record that you received it).  Simply return it with no comments.  At most, say you received but have not reviewed it because it is means and methods.  If you acknowledge that you have "looked it over", you can potentially be held accountable for the content.  Maybe even the lifting procedures.

If you want to look at it, make sure you fully understand it the way you would any other shop drawing.  If you are not prepared to get that involved, simply return it without any comment and stay away.  It should be crystal clear you have no responsibility or over site for means and methods.

I have designed crane picks for contractors (although not tilt).  I generally work with the contractor and rarely get the EOR involved unless there is some glaring omission on the job.  If the contractor has specific questions, let him ask them.  Otherwise I suggest you just return the package and let him do his job.

Jake Watson, S.E.
Salt Lake City, UT

P.S. Then again, maybe I am just too cynical.  It could be the contractor is trying to be pro-active and keep you in the loop regarding his procedures.  Good luck!

On Dec 13, 2007 7:58 PM, Rich Lewis <seaint04@lewisengineering.com> wrote:

I received a large package of information for a tilt-up wall building I designed.  The submittal was produced by Dayton Superior.  It includes a lot of general information on tilt wall erection and then the insert and bracing details for the wall panels.  I wondering how a submittal like this is typically handled by other engineers.  This is basically a "means and method of construction" submittal.   I didn't design the lifting procedure, sequence, anchors, bracing, etc. 

 

I don't think I should "approve" it.  I don't think I should put a typical shop drawing stamp on it.  I'm considering sending it back with a letter stating I looked at it, I don't take exception to anything and remind the contractor that they are responsible for means and methods of construction and I take no responsibility for the lifting and placing design.

 

Is that how others handle it, or is should I look at this differently?

 

Thanks.

 

Rich

 


Tilt-Up Wall Submittal Review

I received a large package of information for a tilt-up wall building I designed.  The submittal was produced by Dayton Superior.  It includes a lot of general information on tilt wall erection and then the insert and bracing details for the wall panels.  I wondering how a submittal like this is typically handled by other engineers.  This is basically a “means and method of construction” submittal.   I didn’t design the lifting procedure, sequence, anchors, bracing, etc. 

 

I don’t think I should “approve” it.  I don’t think I should put a typical shop drawing stamp on it.  I’m considering sending it back with a letter stating I looked at it, I don’t take exception to anything and remind the contractor that they are responsible for means and methods of construction and I take no responsibility for the lifting and placing design.

 

Is that how others handle it, or is should I look at this differently?

 

Thanks.

 

Rich

 

RE: New and hopefully useful web site

You're starting to sound like an OF, Richard.

:o)

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Consulting Structural Engineers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard L. Hess [mailto:RLHess@HessEng.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:33 PM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: New and hopefully useful web site
>
> Has anyone thought of going out to some construction sites to see how
> contractors are trying to straighten out some of those computer created
> "solutions" so the building will stand up?
> I suggest spending more time in the real (as opposed to virtual) world to
> define how the structure should be designed instead of collecting someone
> else's calculations, spreadsheets, etc. that may or not apply.
> But then why should I worry. My business is with the ever increasing
> stock
> of buildings needing repair or retrofit that are presented to me because
> of
> the lack of proper detailing. I don't know of anything that fell down
> because the calculations were ten, twenty or fifty percent off. But I
> know
> of a lot of serious problems due to a missing link in the load path
> because
> the details were not properly developed on the drawing or where the
> engineer
> did not take redundancy or constuctability into account because he/she did
> not understand what goes on out at the construction site.
> Richard Hess
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph R. Grill [mailto:jrgrill@cableone.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:47 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: New and hopefully useful web site
>
>
> Chris,
> Great Idea!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Slater" <chris@jdwylieengineering.com>
> To: <seaint@seaint.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:03 PM
> Subject: New and hopefully useful web site
>
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I've been in the engineering field for a few years now, having spent
> > the six years prior working in the IT industry. While I enjoy
> > structural engineering much more, I have often been frustrated by the
> > lack of good examples available online. If I want to solve a computer
> > problem, or learn how to do something new, there are many, many
> > resources available online. If I want to learn how a structural
> > calculation is done, I have to spend a fair bit of money for either a
> > book, or a seminar.
> >
> > I had the idea a while back to try something out. I wanted to create
> > a web site where engineers could share examples with one another. At
> > our company, we have a folder on our server that is full of PDF scans
> > we've made of calculations that we think others might find
> > instructive. What I'm hoping to do is to create a web site that
> > allows the engineering community to do the same.
> >
> > So I found a structure to build on, and put a site together -
> > www.examplecalcs.com.

The way it works is that examples can be
> > submitted, along with a short description and "tags" that help
> > identify it in a search. These tags might be things like "Seismic",
> > "2001 IBC", "Wood Braced Frame", or what have you. You can specify as
> > many as you see fit. You can submit a link to either a calculation
> > that you have done, or one on another site that you think others might
> > find useful.
> >
> > Once a calculation is submitted, the other users on the site are able
> > to review it and "vote" it up or down, based on it's usefulness and
> > accuracy. There's also the ability to post comments, in case
> > clarification is needed.
> >
> > Finally, I knew that some folks don't have a place to upload and share
> > an example from, so I put together an e-mail handler. If you send an
> > e-mail to "incoming@examplecalcs.com" with the subject of "Example"
> > and a PDF attached, the PDF will be saved to the site (at
> > www.examplecalcs.com/hosted/). You'll reply a reply e-mail with a
> > link to your PDF that you can then submit from the regular site.
> >
> > The site is free. I'm not making any money from it, but I do hope to
> > learn a lot. Please try it out and send any feedback my way. Also,
> > if you think it's a useful site, please pass it on to others.
> >
> > Chris Slater, PE
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > * 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1177 - Release Date:
> 12/7/2007
> 1:11 PM
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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: New and hopefully useful web site

Has anyone thought of going out to some construction sites to see how
contractors are trying to straighten out some of those computer created
"solutions" so the building will stand up?
I suggest spending more time in the real (as opposed to virtual) world to
define how the structure should be designed instead of collecting someone
else's calculations, spreadsheets, etc. that may or not apply.
But then why should I worry. My business is with the ever increasing stock
of buildings needing repair or retrofit that are presented to me because of
the lack of proper detailing. I don't know of anything that fell down
because the calculations were ten, twenty or fifty percent off. But I know
of a lot of serious problems due to a missing link in the load path because
the details were not properly developed on the drawing or where the engineer
did not take redundancy or constuctability into account because he/she did
not understand what goes on out at the construction site.
Richard Hess


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph R. Grill [mailto:jrgrill@cableone.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:47 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: New and hopefully useful web site


Chris,
Great Idea!


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Slater" <chris@jdwylieengineering.com>
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: New and hopefully useful web site


> Hi All,
>
> I've been in the engineering field for a few years now, having spent
> the six years prior working in the IT industry. While I enjoy
> structural engineering much more, I have often been frustrated by the
> lack of good examples available online. If I want to solve a computer
> problem, or learn how to do something new, there are many, many
> resources available online. If I want to learn how a structural
> calculation is done, I have to spend a fair bit of money for either a
> book, or a seminar.
>
> I had the idea a while back to try something out. I wanted to create
> a web site where engineers could share examples with one another. At
> our company, we have a folder on our server that is full of PDF scans
> we've made of calculations that we think others might find
> instructive. What I'm hoping to do is to create a web site that
> allows the engineering community to do the same.
>
> So I found a structure to build on, and put a site together -
> www.examplecalcs.com.

The way it works is that examples can be
> submitted, along with a short description and "tags" that help
> identify it in a search. These tags might be things like "Seismic",
> "2001 IBC", "Wood Braced Frame", or what have you. You can specify as
> many as you see fit. You can submit a link to either a calculation
> that you have done, or one on another site that you think others might
> find useful.
>
> Once a calculation is submitted, the other users on the site are able
> to review it and "vote" it up or down, based on it's usefulness and
> accuracy. There's also the ability to post comments, in case
> clarification is needed.
>
> Finally, I knew that some folks don't have a place to upload and share
> an example from, so I put together an e-mail handler. If you send an
> e-mail to "incoming@examplecalcs.com" with the subject of "Example"
> and a PDF attached, the PDF will be saved to the site (at
> www.examplecalcs.com/hosted/). You'll reply a reply e-mail with a
> link to your PDF that you can then submit from the regular site.
>
> The site is free. I'm not making any money from it, but I do hope to
> learn a lot. Please try it out and send any feedback my way. Also,
> if you think it's a useful site, please pass it on to others.
>
> Chris Slater, PE
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1177 - Release Date: 12/7/2007
1:11 PM

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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: Architects!

I’m sure there’s some deep lying truth here…somewhere.

 

David L. Fisher SE PE

Senior Director

 

The Fisher Companies Ltd. - Cayman

372 West Ontario Chicago 60610

75 Fort Street Georgetown Grand Cayman BWI

319 A Street Boston 02210

 

 

312.573.1701

312.573.1726 facsimile

312.622.0409 mobile

 

www.ccgch.com

www.fpse.com

 

 

 

 


From: GRUPO CG [mailto:grupocg@cantv.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:28 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Architects!

 

It is funny, but I love architects and architecture. Almost all my work come from them, and I have been married three times and my wives have been architects and I still love them.

Alberto Guida

 

De: Bill Allen [mailto:t.w.allen@cox.net]
Enviado el: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:04 AM
Para: seaint@seaint.org
Asunto: Architects!

 

Santa and I occasionally share the same sentiment:

 

http://www.allendesigns.com/architects-christmas2007.jpg

 

Enjoy!

 

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.

ALLEN DESIGNS

Consulting Structural Engineers
 
V (949) 248-8588 F(949) 209-2509

 



_____________ NOD32 EMON 2719 (20071212) information _____________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system
http://www.eset.com



_____________ NOD32 EMON 2721 (20071213) information _____________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system
http://www.eset.com



_____________ NOD32 EMON 2721 (20071213) information _____________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system
http://www.eset.com