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

RE: Shop drawings: who's responsibility?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Alan,

Thanks.  That was a good response.  I just did not recognize the
Machiavellian aspect of the cuss and spit crowd.

Regards,
Harold Sprague


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Greatorex, Alan R ERDC [SMTP:agreatx(--nospam--at)crl02.crrel.usace.army.mil]
> Sent:	Monday, March 13, 2000 11:19 AM
> To:	'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject:	RE: Shop drawings: who's responsibility?
> 
> On the contrary, the mason was a pretty fair psychologist. He got one of
> two
> to quit the inspection. His bad luck was that the other was less
> suggestible.
> 
> Alan Greatorex
> USACRREL
> 72 Lyme Road
> Hanover, NH 03755-1290
> Phone:	603-646-4210
> FAX		603-646-4640
> agreatx(--nospam--at)crrel.usace.army.mil <mailto:agreatx(--nospam--at)crrel.usace.army.mil> 
> 
> 		-----Original Message-----
> 		From:	Sprague, Harold O. [mailto:SpragueHO(--nospam--at)bv.com]
> 		Sent:	Monday, March 13, 2000 10:51 AM
> 		To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> 		Subject:	RE: Shop drawings: who's responsibility?
> 
> 		James,
> 
> 		I was lucky.  The owner backed me 100%.  They even supplied
> legal muscle. 
> 
> 		The specifications were not that complicated.  We had
> pointing mortar
> 		thickness, sealant thickness, bonding requirements and the
> famous "per
> 		manufacturer's requirements".  Sealants were insufficient in
> thickness,
> 		pointing mortar was of insufficient thickness, sealants
> failed in bond to
> 		substrate when tested, glazing sealants failed due to
> improper masonry
> 		cleaning, the manufacturers justifiably refused to accept
> the installation,
> 		and so did I.  The bottom 2 floors looked great.  The next
> 20 floors up were
> 		terrible.  I did my sampling from the 3rd floor to the 22nd
> floor.
> 
> 		Historic cladding rehabilitation is fun.  It is engineering,
> material
> 		science, architecture, and old fashioned spit and cuss (if
> you hit someone
> 		from the 22nd floor, you can blame it on a bird).  The
> architects did not
> 		argue over turf, when it required riding the swing stage up
> a tall building
> 		on a windy day.  But then again, I had one engineering
> assistant quit and go
> 		home. When he got to the 6th floor, a mason tried to calm my
> assistant's
> 		nerves by equating a fall to various sizes of pizza on the
> sidewalk.  Masons
> 		are not very good psychologists.  
> 
> 		Regards,
> 		Harold Sprague
> 
> 
> 		> -----Original Message-----
> 		> From:	SASQUAKE [SMTP:sasquake(--nospam--at)uswest.net]
> 		> Sent:	Friday, March 10, 2000 3:54 PM
> 		> To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> 		> Subject:	Re: Shop drawings: who's responsibility?
> 		> 
> 		>   
> 		> 
> 		> "Sprague, Harold O." wrote: 
> 		> 
> 		> 	  
> 		> 	  I rode the stage up the entire 22 floors of one
> section.  I
> 		> removed 10 samples 
> 		> 	for testing.  All 10 failed to meet specification.
> The foreman
> 		> concurred that 10 
> 		> 	of the 10 samples did not meet specification and
> acknowledged that
> 		> it was indicative 
> 		> 	of the entire south elevation.  I asked the foreman
> what other
> 		> engineers did regarding 
> 		> 	inspection of this type of work.  He told me in 20
> years of doing
> 		> masonry 
> 		> 	rehabilitation, I was the first engineer to ride the
> stage above the
> 		> second 
> 		> 	floor.  . . . 
> 		> 
> 		> 	Regards, 
> 		> 	Harold Sprague
> 		> 
> 		> "So a poor engineer struts his hour upon the second floor
> of the stage and
> 		> then is heard no more?" 
> 		> 
> 		> What was the specification they were required to meet?  
> 		>   
> 		>  
> 
>