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

RE: Structurally vs. Cosmetic Damage

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Gail,

 

I don’t know of generally accepted or legal definitions of either.  When I need to use the term ‘structural damage’ in a report, I mean damage that has 1] reduced the strength of a structural member, or that has 2] produced some increment of change in a progression toward instability [such as tilting of a wall or column that brings P-delta into consideration.  Engineers who deal with kinds of structures that I don’t have experience with may be able to add to the list I’ve started.

 

I don’t use the term ‘cosmetic damage’.  Non-structural damage is a more useful term, which I take to mean damage that is not structural damage.

 

Nels Roselund, SE

South San Gabriel, CA

njineer(--nospam--at)att.net


From: GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 5:11 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Structurally vs. Cosmetic Damage

 

Is there a generally accepted definition of 'structural damage' from subgrade movement,  specifically movement due to expansive clays?

 

Is there a corresponding definition of 'cosmetic damage'?

 

I can think of examples of both types of damage, but I am wondering if there is a definition used for legal puposes.

 

 

Gail Kelley