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

Fees

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The fact of the matter is that the other professionals that you mentioned
are typically acting as the prime contractor if you will in that they are
dealing directly with the client who is paying the bills  As consultants we
are more often than not acting as a sub-contractor through the prime,
typically an architect. If you don't have direct access to the guy putting
the coins in the meter then you are much less likely to get paid for any
time spent on the clock not already specified in your contract.

-----Original Message-----
From: JEFF CORONADO [mailto:jcse(--nospam--at)flash.net]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:26 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Use of Collar Ties..... Thank You


Dennis,

Your comment regarding your fee on this project but that it was time well
spent because you learned something and now are comfortable with it strikes
a chord.  I use your comment as an example but I realize we all do it.

Design professionals often feel undercompensated.  At least as compared to
other professions such as law, medicine and accounting.  Yet, it is our
attitude of I got underpaid but it is ok because .... that does us in.  I am
sure that other professionals are also proud of their work, enoy what they
do and enjoy learning something new.  This however, does not mean that the
meter goes off.  It seems like we are the only ones OK with turning the
meter off while we work.

Jeff Coronado, S.E.
West Covina, CA


----- Original Message -----
From: "Structuralist" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:06 PM
Subject: RE: Use of Collar Ties..... Thank You


> Thanks Russ,
> I did check this (continuous joist at three supports) and you are correct.
> The rafter does work but the bending moment at the second support
increases
> the member to be stressed to 94% of code value. This is still within the
> allowable limits and I've added a 10-psf live load to the member to allow
> for some short term load. I have also warned the owner in the report not
to
> use the attic space for storage (the access is less than 24-inch square so
> it is limited as to what can be placed up there).
>
> Believe it or not, I am charging the owner less than $750.00 for the
report,
> calculations and sketches. The number of hours debating the design reduced
> my profit considerably, but it was, in my opinion, the best time spent as
I
> am comfortable with my design and repair and have written the report as
> concisely as possible to insure that the conclusions drawn are reasonable
> based on the information provided. I have also added additional notes to
> have the contractor verify the connection between the rafter and ties.
>
> In a closing thought consider how little time a contractor would spend
> evaluating the problem in a conventionally constructed home how, without
the
> help of an engineer, he might resolve the problem. In my experience, I
have
> seen few total collapses of structures due to negligence. There are some
> unsafe conditions and shoddy work, but rarely do we have wood frame home
> fail and take lives. Sometimes I think we need to have a little more faith
> in materials we work with and in our intuition as to how the materials
will
> perform as a system. The numbers, as we all know, don't always tell the
> truth because they can't always identify the interaction of materials,
> connections and external unknowns. Our job is to make the best decision we
> can, without intimidation of the consequences of making a mistake, but
being
> diligent enough to have attempted to look at as many possibilities as
> possible.
>
> I think we did that here and I thank each and every one of you who took
the
> time to enter the evaluation process with me - I truly appreciate the
> enthusiasm, concern for my ultimate decision, and experience that each of
> you have brought to the discussion.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dennis S. Wish, PE (Proud Engineer)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: r nester [mailto:rnester(--nospam--at)juno.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:37 AM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: Re: Use of Collar Ties in Light Frame Wo
> >
> >
> > Dennis ---
> >
> > The idea of suspending the middle of the ceiling joists will certainly
> > fix the ceiling sag, but at a price.  The rafter/joist "truss" now
> > carries an additional load - that of the ceiling DL + LL.  At this
point,
> > the rafter-to-joist connections may now be overstressed, trading one
> > problem for another.  Proceed with due caution.  When you deviate from
> > "conventional framing", even a little, you may be on soggy ground.
> >
> > Otherwise your analyses appear reasonable.
> >
> > --- Russ
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 23:17:49 -0700 "Structuralist" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net>
> > writes:
> > > Steve and Russ,
> > > Thanks for your comments. Let me put a few things into some
> > > perspective
> > > here. Actually what was stated in the first post was that it
> > > appeared that
> > > the ridge droped "a few inches" which would suggest three or more.
> > > However,
> > > I failed to state that upon inspection I did not verify any
> > > measurable
> > > deflection in the ridge, but noted that the ridge was not "straight"
> > > across
> > > the garage.
> > >
> > > I think that I let this go a bit too far and failed to correct some
> > > things
> > > clearly.  The two inch deflection figure came from one of the
> > > e-mails where
> > > I did some load calcs on the rafter ties - 2x6 DF #1 using current
> > > 97 UBC
> > > criteria. I considered a 6.0 psf dead load on the 2x6's which were
> > > 25-feet
> > > long and spaced at 24-inch on center. Neglecting live load, the dead
> > > load
> > > deflection was nearly 2-inches.
> > >
> > > Now, what I am leaning to believe that nothing actually happened
> > > along the
> > > ridge. One of the things I think we all missed asking was "how much
> > > space
> > > was there between the bottom ends of the rafters which were flush
> > > framed to
> > > the ridgeboard?" Surely, if the ridgeline dropped a few inches the
> > > angle
> > > between the cut at the original slope and cut at the end of the
> > > rafter after
> > > a three inch drop would show some space or nail withdrawl from the
> > > toe-nails
> > > into the ridgeboard. However, when looking at the picture where the
> > > crack
> > > occurs, there is no space at all. The fit is tight to the ridgeboard
> > > and
> > > there is no indication that a change in slope caused the rafter to
> > > rotate
> > > around the top corner crushing the face grain of the 2x ridgeboard.
> > > In other
> > > words, a consistant tight fit suggests no drop in the ridge.
> > >
> > > The picture also shows that the inside edge of the wood where the
> > > split
> > > occurs is the same color as the face and outter edges of the
> > > ridgeboard.
> > > This is possible as there is no ventilation in this part of the
> > > attic
> > > (another reason to believe that the ceiling was added later) and
> > > therefore
> > > sunlight could not reach the wood to discolor it. However, I would
> > > be
> > > inclined to say that if the ceiling and insulation was installed
> > > some years
> > > later, the ridge would have been subject to some outside light if
> > > only
> > > diffused through an open garage. There is a patina to the wood which
> > > probably occured in the first couple of years of the home. The crack
> > > has the
> > > same patina as the exposed surfaces which makes me believe the crack
> > > has
> > > been there since the home was constructed.
> > >
> > > All of this aside, there is a problem and that is the ceiling. I've
> > > designed
> > > the fix by hanging the ceiling joists (aka rafter ties) from a new
> > > 3.5x14"
> > > Parallam to replace a site built double 2x8 beam spaning 22'-6" and
> > > carrying
> > > a 12'-6" tributary ceiling load. The double 2x8 probably kept the
> > > existing
> > > ceiling from failing completely, but it did nothing to control the
> > > deflection.
> > >
> > > As per the collar ties, I am going to install them, but I will
> > > install them
> > > flush to the top of the new Parallam and use the collar ties to
> > > laterally
> > > brace the compression edge of the beam at 4' on center. This will
> > > give me
> > > more than 60% more capacity in bending to the beam should the owner
> > > decide
> > > to throw some boxes up in the attic.
> > >
> > > FWIW - I calculated the beam for no lateral bracing to see how it
> > > affected
> > > the bending stress and at 22-feet unsupported, the load used reached
> > > about
> > > 90% of the beams bending capacity. With the compression edge
> > > supported at 4'
> > > the beam had reached nearer to 40% of it bending limit.
> > >
> > > Finally, as to the ridge deflection the most reasonable explanation
> > > is that
> > > the 22-foot long board may have been installed crown side down.
> > > Considering
> > > the flush, tight fit of the rafters, it would be a workmanship
> > > problem
> > > rather than one of defect or failure.
> > >
> > > I thank you all again. If I have convinced one of you I think that I
> > > will
> > > have done my job on this one. I certainly convinced myself having to
> > > justify
> > > this to my peers. Shows the powers of a peer-2-peer services such as
> > > time -
> > > a tremendous tool.
> > >
> > > Thanks again everyone!
> > > Dennis
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > > *   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(--nospam--at)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
> >
> > *
> > *   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(--nospam--at)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
>
>
> *
> *   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(--nospam--at)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
>


*
*   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(--nospam--at)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


* 
*   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(--nospam--at)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