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

Re: Structurally vs. Cosmetic Damage

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

The WRI quotes a table published by the Home Owners
Warranty Corporation for allowable concrete cracks in
residential construction.  I have not been able to
find the HOWC on the web to verify this reference, but
you can find the table in WRI Tech Fact TF 202-R-03,
Table 1.  They may be linked to the NAHB, according to
this document.

Granted, this does not distinguish between structural
and non-structural, but it seems like a good starting
point.  If you search for and find the source of this
info, please let me know.

Jim Wilson PE
Stroudsburg, PA

--- GSKWY(--nospam--at) wrote:

> Structural vs. nonstructural actually seems like a
> better way to describe 
> damage.
> "Cosmetic" is open to all kinds of interpretation,
> plus it opens the option 
> to a third possibility, i.e. something that is
> neither cosmetic or structural.  
> Structural vs. nonstructural makes it pretty clear
> those are the two options.
> I think it is probably impossible to do 
> all-encompassing definitions for all 
> types of structures, but the issue seems to come up
> most with respect to 
> residential structures.  It seems like some
> association like NAHB should have come 
> up with a printed definition.
> Gail Kelley

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********