Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Anchors

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: Message
With all due respect, I would strongly argue that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for arbitrarily requiring a soils investigation in SDC D.  None.  If there was a bit more specification on the types of structures that we are concerned about (those with vulnerable geometries, for example), it would make more sense.  But there are NO EXCEPTIONS.  It does not allow the ENGINEER to make the judgment as to whether one is TRULY warranted -- is this because the state doesn't trust us to make the right decision, based on our education and experience ... or are we all being penalized for the negligent acts of others?
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Gordin [mailto:sgordin(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:07 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Anchors

My point exactly.  Why is the repairs of something that is not broken is being shoved into everybody's throats? At everybody's expense?  Unlike the soils investigation issue, there is no justification for that.
Regarding the responsibility, look at Darwin Awards... 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:38
Subject: Re: 3-D modeling

        I have seen two anchor bolt failures in my career.  Both were the result of (in my opinion) bad design combined with thermal loading.
        <...> Unfortunately, the person responsible for the bad design did not go down with the brick<..>
H. Daryl Richardson
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: 3-D modeling

Good morning,
Have you guys noticed that - on top of a ridiculously complicated procedure per ACI 318-05, you cannot really design a reasonable anchor bolt anymore
(IBC/CBC 1908.1.16)?  The problem is that we really DID NOT HAVE ANY ANCHOR BOLT FAILURES TO TALK OF!
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA