Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Landslide

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Personally, Neil, I think it's from the altitude!
Just funnin with you.

Dennis Wish PE

|-----Original Message-----
|From: nmoore(--nospam--at) [mailto:nmoore(--nospam--at)]
|Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 7:28 PM
|To: seaoc(--nospam--at); seaoc(--nospam--at)
|Subject: Re: Landslide
|Actually that kind of language has been in various geotechs for years (that
|is the rebar recommendations).  Although I've always ignored their advice
|and designeds the piers for the particular problem and it's usually a more
|steel, etc.  One thing, though, that we do forget, is a civil-civil using
|this report and going with this recommendation.  The bottom line would be
|at least some reinforcing got in the pier.  Bad scenario.
|But it does happen.
|Neil Moore, S.E.
|on a high tonight after a 50k today.
|Most pier I design are usually five or six feet in diameter and anywhere
|from 20 to 30 feet deep.
|>I think we're flaming geotechs a little harshly.  As I mentioned in an
|>post, my experience with rebar recommendations in soil reports is that
|>recommend minimum reinforcement for geotechnical purposes--such as for
|>expansive soil uplift on piers, etc.--and state that that is the purpose
|>their recommendations.
|>That is not a substitute for the S.E.'s expertise, but an independent
|>recommendation for other conditions.  The geotech is not recommending
|>rebar in piers or grade beams for seismic or wind conditions, but for soil
|>conditions.  Whichever one governs should be specified, and usually it's
|>S.E.'s analysis of lateral loads (wind, seismic, and/or soil pressures).
|>Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
|>Richmond CA