Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Fwd: Re: Construction Tolerances[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: wai(--nospam--at)euken.com
- Subject: Fwd: Re: Construction Tolerances
- From: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org (Richard Lewis)
- Date: 05 Aug 1997 17:59:04 GMT
Most geotechs would consider 1/2 inch between any two points (say footings or walls) as acceptable, and will qualify their foundation recommendations as such. As expected for the GE profession, this is conservative. From personal experience with residential investigations, some owners do not notice (or object to) 3 inches over the longest slab dimension. The 1/4 inch in 20 feet is similar to the ACI construction tolerance of 1/8 inch in 10 feet, measured with a straightedge. For another perspective, I and other "experts" have testified in litigation proceedings that 1 inch over the full slab dimension is tolerable, but that 2 inches or more could be considered "defective". If this isn't confusing enough, let me add that, as a rule of thumb, brittle finishes such as stucco, plaster, or gypsum board will almost certainly show distortion cracking when the distortion along a building line exceeds 1 inch in 20 to 30 feet. At 1/2 inch, the cracks may or may not be present, but will be small enough to be "acceptable". It is distortion - not settlement per se - that will cause visible structural or architectural problems. So, the 1/2 inch used by the GE's, per my limited experience, is an achievable and reasonably conservative guideline for new construction. Russ Nester, SE, GE rnester(--nospam--at)juno.com ___________________________________________________________________ On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 15:42:18 -0800 Mark Baker <shake4bake(--nospam--at)earthlink.net> writes: >I am interested in the opinions of others regarding the following: > >1. What would you (as an engineer, not homeowner) consider as an >acceptable settlement for wood framed residential slab on grade >construction? > >I am well aware of the many factors which one needs to account for in >response to this question, here is what prompted my post... > >I have had a rule of thumb bounced off me by numerous design >professionals over the years of 1/4" in 20', but... no one seems to >know >where this came from. > >2. Does ACI or any other source give placement tolerances for this >type >of construction? > >Mark > > --- Internet Message Header Follows --- Received: from server1.seaoc.org (bqe.com [188.8.131.52]) by host1.texramp.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA16220 for <rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 02:53:57 -0600 (CST) Received: from x4.boston.juno.com by server1.seaoc.org (NTList 3.02.10) id la012075; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 00:52:19 -0800 Received: (from rnester(--nospam--at)juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id DLZ03511; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 03:49:12 EST To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 00:15:41 PST Subject: Re: Construction Tolerances Message-ID: <19970328.004520.2199.7.rnester(--nospam--at)juno.com> References: <3339B45A.43E1(--nospam--at)earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 18-22,24-58 From: rnester(--nospam--at)juno.com Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Error-To: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Loop: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Info: [SEAOC] Owner: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-POP3-Rcpt: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Sender: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Precedence: list X-ListMember: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org [seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org] __________________________________________________ Richard Lewis, P.E. Missionary TECH Team rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org The service mission like-minded Christian organizations may turn to for technical assistance and know-how.
- Prev by Subject: Fwd: Re: Construction Tolerances
- Next by Subject: Fwd: Conventional Framing in UBC
- Previous by thread: Fwd: Re: Construction Tolerances
- Next by thread: Fwd: The 1996 Blue Book Errata