Structural Engineers Associations of Southern Nevada
Previous Newsletters
August 16, 2007
December 14, 2006
October 12, 2006
August 10, 2006
June 8, 2006
April 13, 2006
February 9, 2006
December 8, 2005
October 13, 2005
August 11, 2005
-
-
-
December 9, 2004
October 14, 2004
August 12, 2004
June 10, 2004
April 8, 2004
February 12, 2004
December 11, 2003
October 16, 2003
August 14, 2003
June 12, 2003
April 10, 2003
February 13, 2003
December 12, 2002
October 10, 2002
August 8, 2002
June 13, 2002
April 11, 2002
February 21, 2002
June 14, 2001
April 12, 2001
February 8, 2001
February 10, 2000
December 9, 1999
October 14, 1999
August 12, 1999
June 10, 1999
April 15, 1999
Meeting Schedule
|
Date
Location
Time
Speaker
Topic
|
June14, 2001
Holiday Inn Meeting Room
325 East Flamingo
6:00 p.m. Mixer
6:30 p.m. Business Meeting
6:45 - 8:30 p.m. Presentation
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
Slender Concrete Tilt-up Design
|
SEASoN Officers
|
President
Past President
Vice President
Secretary/Treasurer
Director
|
Rimah I. Nazzal, P.E.
Mark Steele, S.E.
Kevin McOsker, P.E.
Mohammad Jadid, P.E.
Gene Frodsham, P.E.
|
The renewal notices were mailed out a couple of months ago along with a survey form for your input. I encourage
all of you who have not mailed back the dues and the survey form to do so as soon as possible so that we can keep
having the bimonthly meetings and presentations at no addition cost to you. We also would like to compile all of
the suggestions that we receive, whether through the survey form or by a direct contact with any of the board
members, and try to improve our association.
During the past two board meetings we discussed the possibility of having a joint meeting with the local ACI
chapter. A few of you suggested it and I would like to hear from more members regarding this possibility then
provide you with more information in a future newsletter.
On April 20th and 21st I took the SE exam and it was quite an experience. The last time I took an exam was for
the PE back in 1992, and to sit down and study then be tested after all of these years felt strange. The
studying part was not that bad since we, engineers, need to keep up with the latest codes and learn new software
consistently, but the strange part was to be tested again. I am the first president of SEASoN who is not an SE,
but hopefully this will change before my term as a president ends (then the pressure is on Kevin to do the same).
This month’s SEASoN presentation will be about slender concrete tilt-up wall design that is sponsored by the
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, please mark your calendars and try to attend. We are still waiting for
feedback and assistance in selecting presentation topics that are of interest. If you like to know a little bit
more about certain subject, or if you know of a presenter, please contact us and we will work on setting it up.
For SEASoN’s web site, in the near future we are going to add links to other engineering related sites for easy
access. Go to www.seasn.org and check out the latest announcements and links.
I hope to see all of you at our next meeting.
Rimah I. Nazzal, P.E.
A full year has elapsed since the formation of the various committees to study the International Codes for
potential adoption in the Southern Nevada area. I will focus on the structural provisions in the International
Building Code and the progress that the review committee, organized by the Southern Nevada Building Officials has
made to date.
The chapters subject to review are primarily structural in nature and range from chapter 16 to chapter 25. The
review is nearly complete with recommendations to be presented to the steering committee later this month. After
review by the Southern Nevada Building Officials, the recommendations will be released for industry
consideration.
The bulk of the recommendations are modifications to chapters 16 and 18. The recommendations to chapter 16 are of
a low level nature and do not try to modify the basic structure of the published code provisions. Chapter 18
provisions are more far reaching and are likely to include a modified Appendix Chapter K that is slated to be
part of the 2003 Edition of the IBC.
The seismic provisions are organized in a stair step nature according to the seismic design category assigned to
the site. This seismic design category replaces the seismic zone concept familiar to users of the Uniform
Building Code. The seismic design categories range from A to F and do not correlate directly with the UBC seismic
zones.
The seismic design category depends upon two main parameters. The first is the soil profile that is nearly
identical to the 1997 UBC provisions and seismic coefficients based on site location. These two are used to
determine the seismic design category for the site. The IBC as published will not result in a single seismic
design category for the entire Southern Nevada Area.
It is imperative that design community studies this landmark document prior to the issuance of the proposed
amendments by the Southern Nevada Building Officials.
Ted Droessler, P.E., Chairman IBC Structural Review Committee
Announcements
Sika Corporation has scheduled a seminar on strengthening with composite materials on Thursday,
June 21 at the Holiday Inn 325 E. Flamingo Road. The seminar is from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Please see the
enclosed flier for a fax back confirmation form.
Individuals interested in becoming member of SEASoN may request application information from:
www.seasn.org contains an application form, information about the organization, SEASoN Newsletter and advertising
rates.
Wright Engineers is looking for a few good people. Please see the enclosure for further information on
this important opportunity.
|
Meeting Schedule
|
Date
Location
Time
Speaker
Topic
|
April 12, 2001
Holiday Inn Meeting Room
325 East Flamingo
6:00 p.m. Mixer
6:30 p.m. Business Meeting
6:45 - 8:30 p.m. Presentation
Steve Conboy
John D. Davis
ProSystems Inc.
Nascor Wide Flange Joists
Open Joist 2000 Trusses
PSL, LVL, LSL / Cost & Performance
|
SEASoN Officers
|
President
Past President
Vice President
Secretary/Treasurer
Director
|
Rimah I. Nazzal, P.E.
Mark Steele, S.E.
Kevin McOsker, P.E.
Mohammad Jadid, P.E.
Gene Frodsham, P.E.
|
I would like to start this message by thanking the departed board members Dana Ames and Ted Droessler for
their services in the past years; and welcoming the newly elected Vice President, Kevin McOsker, and
director, Gene Frodsham, to the board. In addition I would like to thank all of the past presidents starting
with Brent Wright, our first president, followed by Bill de la Garza, Gregg Mendenhall, Dana Ames and Mark
Steele for their hard work and contributions to SEASoN.
At our last bi-monthly meeting, the turn out was about 45 people, which is great compared to the preceding
few meetings. The biggest complaint is not having ample advanced notice of the meeting to plan on attending;
we are working on this issue by faxing notices about two weeks prior to the meeting and we are also trying to
send the newsletter as early as possible (I apologize and take responsibility for this issue being late).
The second biggest complaint is the topic of the presentation. Here is where we need your help and input the
most. Diane Hunt and I have been working hard on selecting topics that we think are beneficial to our
engineering community. We understand that we are not going satisfy ever person every time. Therefore, we
need feedback from you so that we may, sometime, satisfy all of you. Keep in mind that the feedback and
critique is not limited to the program, but is encouraged for any and all issues affecting SEASoN. A list of
contacts can be found on our web site "www.seasn.org".
The bottom line is that we need your help, support and participation. We have the potential of growing big,
but without your help we will go nowhere. It takes time and effort to make it; I know that the effort is
there but time is limited, therefore, if we get more people involved we can reduce the required time and
accomplish our goals. As for the goals, they are: 1. Promote and establish ethical
standards of professional conduct and business practice among structural engineers. 2. Provide a united
voice to help promote proper legislation and codes relating to structural engineering. 3. Cooperate with and
assist local building departments to improve plan examination, inspection procedures, and local policies
through standardization of requirements. 4. Provide comment and assistance in the establishment of local
building codes. 5. Provide a forum for the discussion of current engineering topics and the free exchange of
ideas among structural engineers. 6. Help to improve local construction practices and policies as they
relate to structural engineering for the betterment of the public welfare. 7. Provide continuing education
opportunities for structural engineers.
So as the commercial says: Just do it.
Rimah I. Nazzal, P.E.
Everyone wants it…talks about it, and like the weather, it comes and goes.
What is it? The best definition is that it is fitness for use. This leaves a wide swath to be mowed. To
some a house is for protection; for others, looks; for others it is just to make money with. This leaves us
with the problem of trying to hit an illusive target. There are two things that can be said.
Quality cannot be inspected into a product. Once the structure is built, the quality is there.
Inspection can only mitigate the lack of quality. Yet we build bigger and greater inspection
services.
The second thing is stranger. All things exist as a probability. With a great howl, the carrion eaters
scream that a nail is off, that a measurement is wrong, a crack (heaven forbid) has formed. Yet all these
things are just manifestations of the probability of things going wrong.
So what can we do? The present course of increased inspection is leading to greater costs, and lawsuits are
leading to even greater increases in cost. In order to decrease the probability of an adverse event, the
strength of serviceability of the design must be increased at least in proportion. This will have the
potential, and inevitable effect, of increasing the housing prices by $5000 to $15000 dollars. This increase
has already started (Why be stingy? Let’s make it $20K per house and have a good hollow laugh.)
Even dismissing a discussion of moral responsibility (The Supreme Court has decreed that there is no
morality…that law is an arbitrary construct. But we weren’t going to discuss this, were we.) The quality of
our product is related to our reputations and to our ability to attract business and satisfy our customers.
This is where it gets sticky. There is no single cause. There are things that can be done, but their effect
on the quality is itself a probability.
The first is that only the workers can make quality. It is built in, not added on. This means that we have
a hard, maybe intractable, problem. In the face of competition, it is hard to reduce cheap labor that
produces a saleable product in exchange for higher cost labor that produces more quality. In the final
analysis, the training of the worker is at the start of what should be done. It is necessary to see to the
training of the worker so that they can produce lots of quality work. This is mostly beyond out purview.
Worker motivation is also beyond our reach. Even the best trained can turn out mediocre work. Quality is
also a metaphysical phenomenon. It depends on the belief of the workers and their desire to create it. Hope
and belief are the greatest powers that exist, and those that can command them can lead their followers to
the gates of heaven, but not in. This motivation can happen on the level of the individual companies. We
cannot affect it.
What can we do? Not much. But we need to be involved in two things.
First, we need to work with the Inspection entities to bring probability into the idea of code requirements
and inspection. In numbers of plugs and in spacing and clearances there is an arbitrary rule. When these
are not met, the legalists measure to the hairs breadth and scream that it is deficient. But most things
demanded as exact by the code should be instead defined as a probability. So what if the nail spacing is
uneven; within broad limits this variation will not affect the strength or serviceability of the structure.
Everything that is required by the code should be defined as a variation within limits. Uneven nailing, what
are the limits of variation? Countersunk nails, what is the allowable variation? Nothing can be
done perfectly and in measuring and inspecting, for architectural and structural, without acknowledging and
using variation, we have thrown ourselves into the jaws of the lawyers. Self flagellation is absurd.
By defining acceptable variation and having standards for the measurement of variation, we can then measure
quality and our progress towards it. We may not make six sigma, but we can know where we are on the road.
Second. We need a routine method of quickly and effectively addressing lapses in quality and perceptions of
lack of quality. Some companies have a good record of dealing with this; some others? The costs of
maintaining and staffing court facilities are enormous. This is a cost to society…it comes directly out of
everyone’s pockets. This is on top of the costs to people who pay more because we have an inefficient way of
dealing with these contentions.
This system should include evaluation and mediation of complaints. It should be formed so that it is able to
solve these problems before they get to the legal option. What form shall this take? I would not even begin
to guess. There are so many interests involved that it may be an impossible dream.
We can and should begin thinking and talking about these things. It is part of our responsibility to give a
good product to society. It is one of the central themes for controlling liability. It keeps the rich from
getting richer…and that is a good plan (and you know which rich ones it is, and it isn’t me.)
Gene Frodsham, P.E.
Word on the street is that the 2000 IBC is on the fast track to adoption by local building jurisdictions
sometime in the fourth quarter of this year. In my opinion, this is moving much too quickly and will have
serious negative consequences for everyone involved in the construction industry in Southern Nevada - from
designers to builders to developers to owners to building officials.
I am fully in support of the adoption of new code regulations that will continue to protect the safety and
welfare of the public. However, it is my opinion that many of the provisions of the 2000 IBC may be
unjustifiably excessive for the Las Vegas area. Furthermore, some of the provisions, particularly for wind
design, are by the admission of ICBO flawed and in need of revision and/or clarification prior to
implementation. While some of these shortcomings may be resolved through local code amendments, the
anticipated timing of the code adoption and the lack of sufficient time for input and comment from practicing
design professionals and the construction industry are serious items of concern with far reaching negative
implications.
According to my understanding, the anticipated adoption schedule is approximately as follows:
- First and second quarter 2001: Proposals and recommendations for code amendments due back from
various code committees (comprised almost exclusively of building officials with virtually no input from
industry).
- Third quarter 2001: Submit proposed code amendments to industry for review and comment.
- Fourth quarter 2001: Adopt 2000 IBC with Southern Nevada Code Amendments.
In my opinion, the schedule outlined above is flawed for the following reasons:
- The proposed code adoption time frame does not allow adequate time for review and comment from
practicing design and construction professionals.
- The proposed code adoption time frame does not allow adequate time for staff training and for
modification of design tools and standards to comply with the new code provisions.
- The proposed code adoption time frame does not allow adequate time for owners and developers to properly
budget for the increased construction costs to their projects.
- The proposed code adoption time frame will not allow adequate time for many projects currently in
planning and design to have the construction documents completed prior to the new code adoption. Projects
currently in the design and planning stages must be given reasonable time to be permitted and constructed
under the current code requirements without having to radically alter the design “mid-stream”.
Besides the “timing” issues, particular structural engineering code changes that I believe will significantly
impact everyone associated with the construction industry in Southern Nevada are as follows:
- Seismic design and detailing requirements will be increased. Most of Southern Nevada will be classified
by the 2000 IBC as being in seismic design category D. Consequently, most new construction will be required
to comply with seismic loading and detailing requirements formerly restricted only to (UBC) zones 3 and 4.
This will obviously increase design fees and construction costs.
- Structural observation will be required on many assembly, educational, hazardous, and institutional
facilities. This, in my opinion, is probably a justifiable requirement. However, it will impact consultant
fees and construction costs.
- Concrete structures will require special moment frames and special reinforced shearwalls.
- Masonry buildings will no longer be able to the use the conventional shearwalls currently allowed, but
rather must be detailed as special reinforced masonry shearwalls.
- Common residential construction materials such as gypsum board shearwalls will, in effect, no longer be
allowed. While I do not necessarily oppose this restriction, it will certainly increase the cost of
residential construction. Plywood shearwall aspect ratios will be restricted to 2:1, requiring more use of
proprietary tall slender shearwall systems or steel frames (or dramatic reductions in large open window walls
currently popular with custom home designers).
- Special inspection requirements are increased. Special inspection will be required for all masonry
construction, for the seismic force resisting system of most residential and wood construction, and for the
seismic restraints of certain architectural, electrical, and mechanical components. While I believe this
requirement may result in better construction, its implementation will be costly and may impact construction
schedules as the supply of qualified special inspectors, already stretched thin, will likely be inadequate
for the newly created demand.
The above IBC-mandated requirements represent a significant departure from the current standard of practice
in the Las Vegas Valley. While I firmly believe that design professionals and building officials should
continually keep up with the advancing state of the art, we must use wisdom in its application and in the
timing of its adoption.
I recommend that the local building officials not rush into adoption of the 2000 IBC. It seems almost
inevitable that at some point, the IBC will be adopted. However, the once held dream of some to have a
nationwide uniform design code will likely never be. Local changes and amendments will still vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and will result in the same patchwork of code requirements we currently work
under. In my opinion it will be a mistake to force the 2000 IBC onto the Southern Nevada design and
construction industry without allowing adequate time for review and preparation to accommodate its
requirements. Most neighboring building jurisdictions seem to have taken a “wait and see” attitude to the
IBC. I believe it would be wisdom for us to do likewise.
Brent Wright, S.E.
The organization of structural engineers was instituted for a purpose, with the questions of what and how
left open. The following comments concern the “what”. As I read this over, it is dull and very
formal…unlike me. But read it anyway.
The practice of our branch of engineering started in the design and construction of works for the benefit of
society; hence, Civil Engineering. It ought, in this organization, to be our purpose to impact several
aspects of this practice we profess, with the intent of increasing its effectiveness.
First is to have an impact on the direction of the profession. This requires communication with the code
adoption and enforcement entities. It should be the goal of the association to have people on the committees
that consider the adoption and meaning of the codes in the county and cities. It is the goal of codes to
standardize the requirements for a safe design; this should also include consideration effectiveness of the
rules and the cost of the final product. By being part of this process we can bring a quality, affordable
product to the market. One of our goals should be to provide representation to the committees of the
different jurisdictions.
This representation should extend further than the code adoption process. We interact more with plans
checkers and inspectors on a daily basis that we do with those charged with the codes. This varies from the
sublime to the maddening (which forms part of my insanity defense, which I have been working on since 1977).
Too often the changes in requirements from the City or County have come in the form of plan check comments.
With some representation, it would be possible to provide a means of disseminating these changing
requirements without surprise.
There is often a bit of friction, especially when a series of comments contains some that are obscure,
indecipherable or just crazy. The plan check process adds a great deal of cost to the process, and it should
be possible to help contain this cost by making the process better; of which there are ideas many, but not
discussed here.
The costs caused by problems on the job site are not much within the purview of the engineers, but need to be
addressed. Too often, we only hear of problems when the inspector finds them…if. This should be addressed
at least two ways.
In all the time that I have been here, I have never been aware of any company analyzing costs of the problems
and rework in the construction of residential housing and trying to minimize them (except by pointing the
fickle finger of fate). Yet these can add hundreds of dollars to the cost of a house. Without quantification
of the types and number of these problems, we have no knowledge of any problem or its extent or if there is
anything that can be done, or even a problem.
Engineers have been omitted from the process of insuring adequate construction by the previous actions of
lawyers. The new code attempts to bring us back in…but does not in any way discuss the problems of
liability, thereby attempting to throw us into the hands of the lawyers. We must have some input in this
balancing act of responsibilities. Yet, problems need to be solved, but only problems. The shot gun scheme
of making regulations, which hit everywhere, is a captive of the law of unintended consequences. It may
(will…but I am trying to sound impartial) have the effect of greatly increasing prices while having minimum
impact on the end product.
In every aspect, from inception to creation, we need to be involved (And no, it is not as fun as $@*). How to
do this? It has been proposed (and I blush) that those who are members be aware that they
will be called on from time to time to be on ad hoc committees or to serve a small term (not
to be onerous) in some capacity. Objections have already been raised, yet to have a vibrant, involved
society we must be involved and active (though you may still remain a dull lifeless thing)
Gene Frodsham, P.E.
Announcements
Individuals interested in becoming memebers of SEASoN may request application information
from:
c/o Rimah Nazzal
SEASoN
G. C. Wallace, Inc.
1555 South Rainbow Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89146
or
www.seasn.org contains an application form, information about the organization and SEASoN Newsletter
advertising rates
|
SEAOC Convention 2001 (www.seaoc2001.org)
Meeting Schedule
|
Date
Location
Time
Speaker
Topic
|
February 8, 2001
Holiday Inn Meeting Room
325 East Flamingo
6:00 p.m. Mixer
6:30 p.m. Business Meeting
6:45 - 8:30 p.m. Presentation
Robert J. Herm, P.E., S.E.
Strocal, Inc.
The Heart of Building in Steel "Connections"
|
SEASoN Officers
|
President
Past President
Vice President
Secretary/Treasurer
Director
|
Mark Steele, S.E.
Dana A. Ames, S.E.
Rimah I. Nazzal, P.E.
Theodore L. Droessler, P.E.
Mohammad G. Jadid, P.E.
|
Individuals interested in becoming memebers of SEASoN may request application information from:
c/o Rimah Nazzal
SEASoN
G. C. Wallace, Inc.
1555 South Rainbow Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89146
or
www.seasn.org contains an application form and information about the organization.
Remember to cast your vote for SEASoN offices. You should have received the ballot in a
seperate mailing. Results to be announced at the meeting.
Out with the Old and In with the New
Well my year is over and it is probably a good thing for our organization. During this last year, we seem to
have lost our enthusiasm and entered a state of complacency. I know that some of this is due to my leadership,
there were some obvious problems that I should have prevented. Our association is still very young and we all
need to keep putting forth the effort to make it grow. Little things seem to have had big results, such as
getting the newsletters out in a timely manner with the correct meeting location information would have helped
improve meeting attendance. This month we will elect new officers and replace a few others, so it is a good
time for everyone to get excited again. Let's renew our own efforts and get this group back on the road to being
something we can be proud of. I know that Rimah will be looking to us all for help in the coming year.
Last week several of our members including myself attended an informal discussion with City of Las Vegas
building department personnel. They were looking to the architects and engineers for their opinions regarding
the International Building Code (IBC 2000). As we all know this code was intended to be a code that would
encompass the entire United States and maybe even foreign countries. What a concept, one source of design
requirements for building projects anywhere! However, it seems that the approval/acceptance process is going to
be a little bumpy for us all. As much as we thought or hoped the local entities were going to wait for IBC
2003. The local building departments are targeting adoption of the current version before the end of this year.
It was my understanding from the discussion that the exceptions to the IBC200 as written may be a multi-page
document itself. The City of Las Vegas staff has serious reservations about adopting a building code with a
large number of exceptions. Will this "Las Vegas Valley" code adoption create more division within our own
state and the other western states? Is this moving towards a unified code or not? These and several other
questions will need to be answered by each one of us before we can make an informed decision.
Our first step should be for each one of us to get a copy of this code and read what it says. We will need
to provide our opinions very soon to the local entities to make sure the document that is adopted with all of
the amendments is what we want. If our opinion as individuals or as a group is that this document should not be
adopted in its present form, we will need to make this fact known to councilmen, commissioners, mayors, etc. As
with all political decisions a large and vocal majority of opinion will be required to change their perspective.
Perhaps SEASoN could be the facilitator of a valley wide meeting(s) to discuss the merits and reservations with
the IBC2000 and come to a level of acceptance with all the various parties in the construction industry. If our
decision is to block its adoption as the document we work/live by then we will need to follow through with the
process. We must then present our disagreements to the code body and make sure that the IBC 2003 is something
we can live with. We all know that a revised version of the present building code is inevitable. But is the
IBC2000 the best answer for all Las Vegas Valley building projects for the next three years?
As a side note, the 2001 Legislative session is staring soon. So don't get too wrapped up in this code
debate and overlook the bills presented that will affect us. We will need to
be informed and ready for action at a moment's notice when these actions are being decided.
Mark Steele, S.E., President
The Southern Nevada Building Officials, representing building departments in the Southern Nevada area (Boulder
City, Clark County, Henderson, Mesquite and North Las Vegas) have decided to pursue the adoption of the 2000
International Building Code and the International Residential Code. It is estimated that the adoption would
occur in the fourth quarter or 2001. The date may be refined by early summer such that the design community and
the public can determine the applicable code for future projects.
Representatives from all the building departments are working on local amendments to the International Building
Code and the International Residential Code. A target of June 2001 has been established for a draft of the
amendments. For approximately three months following the draft amendments, there will be meetings with industry,
final approval by the building officials, and publication of the Southern Nevada Amendments booklets. Local
ordinance drafts will be prepared for introduction to the various jurisdictions.
Mohammad Jadid, P.E.
Liaison to the Southern Nevada Structural Review Committee.
Estimated Expenses
Membership Meetings - Six per year
|
|
|
|
|
|
Room |
5 dozen sandwiches |
$250.00 |
|
|
Food |
5 dozen sandwiches |
$100.00 |
|
|
Soda |
40 cans at $1.50/can |
$60.00 |
|
|
Dry Erase Board |
|
$20.00 |
|
|
Projection Screen |
|
$20.00 |
|
|
|
|
------ |
|
|
|
6 x |
$450.00 |
$2700.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Board of Directors Lunch Meeting |
|
12 x |
$60.00 |
$720.00 |
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations - Dues
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Organization |
|
$500.00 |
|
|
75 members x $3.00 per member |
|
$225.00 |
|
|
|
|
------- |
|
|
|
|
$725.00 |
$725.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Delegate trip to represent SEASoN at NCSEA |
|
|
|
$1700.00 |
Seminar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Room |
|
$250.00 |
|
|
Refreshments |
|
$60.00 |
|
|
Outside Speaker |
|
$250.00 |
|
|
|
Hotel |
$125.00 |
|
|
|
Air Fare |
$200.00 |
|
|
|
Meals |
$75.00 |
|
|
|
Cab Fare |
$30.00 |
|
|
|
|
------- |
|
|
|
2 x |
$990.00 |
$1880.00 |
Newsletter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies |
80x.1x6/yr |
|
$48.00 |
|
Envelopes |
80x.02x6/yr |
|
$9.60 |
|
Postage |
80x.34x6/yr |
|
$163.20 |
|
Newsletter Shells |
80x.12x6/yr |
|
$57.60 |
|
Professional Services |
50.00x6/yr |
|
$300.00 |
|
|
|
|
-------- |
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
$8303.40 |
Estimated Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dues |
75 members x $75.00 |
|
$5625.00 |
|
Seminar |
2 x 25 persons x $55.00 |
|
$2750.00 |
|
|
|
|
-------- |
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
$8375.00 |
Projected carry over from fiscal year = 8375 - 8310 = $65.00
|
SEASoN Newsletter Advertising Confirmation Form
|
| 1. |
Name of organization: _______________________________________________________________________________ |
| 2. |
Address: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ |
| 3. |
Name of contact person: ____________________________________________________________________________ |
| 4. |
Phone: (____)________________________________ |
Fax: (____)__________________________________ |
| 5. |
The above-name firm wishes to place the following SEASoN advertising order:
|
| |
Frequency: ________ 1x ________ 2x ________ 3x ________
4x |
| |
Ad size: _____ Full _____ 2/3 Pg _____ ½ Pg _____ 1/3 Pg _____ 1/4 Pg _____
1/8 Pg |
| |
Issues to run:
__________________________________________________________________ |
| |
Ad __________ Black/white |
| |
Cost per issue: $__________ |
| 6. |
Artwork |
| __ |
Our ad is 100 percent camera-ready, and we enclose it herewith. We will use this
ad for future issues,
unless we notify SEASoN of a new ad, in writing, before the publication deadline. |
| __ |
Use the same ad we are currently running. |
| __ |
Our ad will be 100 percent camera-ready, and we will submit it to you by [date]
_____________ |
| 7. |
Payment: |
| |
Enclosed is our check in the amount of $________ for our first ad insertion.
We understand that we
will be invoiced for each future issue prior to our ad's insertion, and that payment must be received by
SEASoN prior to each issue's publication date. |
| 8. |
We have read the SEASoN advertising rate card specifications, policies, and rates
and understand all
mutual obligations and considerations discussed therein: |
| |
Signed ______________________________________________________________________
|
| |
Printed name of signatory
________________________________________________________ |
| |
Position with firm/advertise
_______________________________________________________ |
| |
Date ________________________________________________________________________
|
RETURN FORM, AD,
& CHECK TO: Ted Droessler, Chairman Newsletter Committee, SEASoN, P O
BOX 15507, Las Vegas NV 89114
COST PER INSERTION
The matrix below indicates the cost per insertion of a black-and-white advertisement only. The rate paid
depends upon the number of insertions per contract. All ad space, other than paid premium positions, is
offered on a run-of-publication (ROP) basis only.
| Size |
1x |
2x |
3x |
4x |
Full Page
7"w x 10"h |
$70 |
$65 |
$50 |
$55 |
2/3 Page
4 1/4"w x 9 1/2"h |
$45 |
$40 |
$35 |
$30 |
1/2 Page
6 3/4"w x 4 3/4"h |
$35 |
$30 |
$25 |
$20 |
1/3 Page
2"w x 9 1/2"h (V)
4 1/4"w x 4 1/2"h (H) |
$25 |
$20 |
$15 |
$15 |
1/4 Page
6 3/4"w x 2 1/4"h |
$20 |
$15 |
$10 |
$10 |
Business Card
(1/8 Page)
3 1/2"w x 2"h |
$10 |
$10 |
$10 |
$10 |
SPACE AVAILABILITY
The amount of advertising in any one issue of SEASoN is limited. Ads will be placed on a first come
first served basis.
Meeting Schedule
|
Date
Location
Time
Speaker
Topic
|
February 10, 2000
Holiday Inn Meeting Room
325 East Flamingo
6:00 p.m. Mixer
6:30 p.m. Business Meeting
6:45 - 8:30 p.m. Presentation
Richard Stone
Managing Director of Western Technologies
Deep Foundations in Southern Nevada
|
SEASoN Officers
|
President
Past President
Vice President
Secretary/Treasurer
Director
|
Dana A. Ames, S.E.
Gregg N. Mendenhall, S.E.
Mark Steel, S.E.
Diane C. Hunt, P.E.
Theodore L. Droessler, P.E.
|
Individuals interested in becoming a member of SEASoN may request application information from:
c/o Rimah Nazzal
SEASoN Membership Chairman
G. C. Wallace, Inc.
1555 South Rainbow Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89146
Remember to cast your vote for SEASoN offices. You should have received the ballot in a separate mailing. Results to be announced at the meeting.
Out with the Old and In with the New
Well this is my last message. Hopefully by Monday all the voting members will have received their ballots and by Thursday returned them so they can be counted and two new officers elected for SEASoN. I have been surprised by the amount of effort it takes just to do the little things that keep an organization going. Things like writing the presidents message, mailing out dues statements, having board meetings, scheduling speakers and meeting rooms, and attempting to keep all the members interested.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the other officers and committee members for all their hard work during this last shortened year. A special thanks to Rimah for his help on the membership committee and Carolyn on the program committee. These two positions require continuous effort throughout the course of the year.
I would have liked to accomplish more during my time as president, but as with many things in life the time passed by much faster than I expected. In closing, I would like to encourage all the members to become more involved in the organization. If each of us does just a little job during the course of the year we may be able to accomplish some significant things. As past president, I will still be involved with the organization and hopefully will be able to help the incoming officers in some way. Good Luck to Mark and I look forward to reading his first Presidents Message.
Dana A. Ames, S.E., President
Span-By-Span Construction for I-15/US 95 Interchange Stage 2, Las Vegas, Nevada
The following article by Fred Y. Feng, P.E. of Parsons Brinkerhoff, is provided as a continuing series.
Comparative Maintenance costs - the maintenance cost criteria is a measure of the relative cost to maintain the structure. Structural materials that are long lasting and do not require extensive routine inspection and maintenance are the most desirable. Steel is considered to require more frequent inspection for fatigue, corrosion, and bearing performance. The selected alternatives should be able to accommodate details that allow access for maintenance at bearings, hinges, and drains. A general ranking of the superstructure types from the most favorable to the least favorable reflecting the maintenance cost is in the following order: prestressed concrete, conventionally reinforced concrete, and structural steel.
Superstructure Design
A preliminary design has been made for a representative five span continuous structure using precast segmental span-by-span construction with each span length of 45 meters. An important aspect considered during the segmental bridge design was the time dependent behavior of the structure. This is due to the time dependent effects which would continuously change the span camber and redistribute the internal stresses during and after the construction is completed. The time dependent effects of the structure which include prestress tendon relaxation, concrete creep and shrinkage, are the functions of the following factors: (1) concrete mixture, (2) concrete age, (3) environmental temperature and relative humidity, (4) segment geometry, (5) type of prestress steel (steel relieved or low relaxation), (6) the time of initial loading and the time of each load condition change, (7) the period of each load application. An explanation of a few of the selected parameters related to the time dependent functions are provided below:
- Casting dates of the segments. These dates would be stored in a data base to be used to calculate the concrete ages of each segment in different construction stages. The assumed casting rate was one typical segment per day per casting machine. It was also assumed that there would be four casting machines for the typical segments and one casting machine for pier segment in this project. Therefore, the total casting rate would be four typical segments and one pier segment per day. However, the real casting situation was two casting machines for the typical segments and one for the pier segment and expansion segment. With such arrangement the total casting rate was two typical segments per day and one pier or expansion segment per week.
- Creep and shrinkage coefficients, and notional thickness. Those were input parameters according to the CEB-FIP code which is being widely used by industries, and is adopted by AASHTO in the “Guide Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete Bridges”.
- Erecting span and pier segments. The erection dates of each segment were included in the command , and the program would use these dates to calculate the loading period of the structure for each construction stage. The assumed average erection rate was two spans per week. However, the actual erection rate to date is one span per week which includes completion of prestressing.
Each span construction was defined as a construction stage. During each stage, the segments were erected first and, then, followed by the prestressing application while all segments were hung by the launching truss. The external draped tendons over the pier segments would not be stressed until the internal positive moment tendons in the bottom soffit had been stressed. Then, the last continuous internal tendons for the entire frame would be stressed. Next, the calculations of time dependent effects due to concrete creep and shrinkage were requested. Finally, the summation of forces for this stage, and the total forces and deformations including all the previous stages were requested.
After the erection sequence was completed, the superimposed dead load was applied to the analysis. To calculate the time dependent effects on the structure after erection, the program analyzed the structure behavior, which includes internal forces, support reactions and deflections, for the periods of 500 days, 1,000 days, 2,000 days 5,000 days and until 10,000 days. At 10,000 days, it is generally considered that the time dependent effects have totally dissipated. In order to achieve the design profile of the segmental bridge, the segments of each span have to be match cast according to a predefined casting curve. Since the time dependent effects on the structure could be practically neglected after a certain period following construction complete date, the casting curve is generated by adjusting the design profile according to the deformations. For interior spans of each frame, the computer output of 10,000 days were used, and the end of construction was used for exterior spans. With respect to the development of camber values, the designer wanted to ensure that at the beginning of the service life of the structures, as well as at the end, the bridge spans on all the ramp structures will always have either a level span or slight hump rather than a sag within a span. Furthermore, based on the analysis, it can be concluded that this structure remains in a total state of pre-compression under the most demanding service conditions which include live load and temperature gradients. Also, an ultimate capacity check on this structure has confirmed that the preliminary design [complies] with the AASHTO Load Factor Design requirements.
Fred Y. Feng, P.E.
A letter was written to Marc Dixon, P.E. of the Clark County Building Department by Lou Alires, P.E., S.E. Consulting Engineer. The letter was dated January 18, 2000.
This letter is to express my opinion why the Clark County Building Department should implement a policy for better reviewing or assuring that the structural engineer can better review the prefabricated wooden truss component(s). I do believe that everyone can benefit by better coordinating some of the problems that are being discussed today.
Time and time again, questions arise as to the responsibility of the structural engineer when he specifies prefabricated components to his design. One of the questions that comes to mind, does the building department have the last word on whose responsible if the structural engineer cannot review shop drawings because the party submitting the plans is not required to have the structural engineer review prefabricated components? Another question.., is anybody reviewing the shop drawings and submitting them to the building department? I certainly feel that someone needs to enforce some sort of policy; whereas, everyone is in the loop and we can all conclude that the review process is complete.
It appears that to put some of these questions at ease, the City of Las Vegas has the engineer review and stamp the individual truss profiles as well as the erection drawing prior to the contractor receiving a building permit. Many times this is not the answer, but I find some assurance that I at least could feel that I participated responsibly. As I spoke to you today Marc, I feel that we all have to provide due diligence in order to satisfy the finished product.
I am of the opinion that in order that the structural engineer can accomplish due diligence, he must be informed of these manufactured prefabricated components submittals if they do go to the county. Whether this process of informing the structural engineer occurs prior to construction or during construction, at least the engineer will play a key role in seeing that his design intent will be or has been executed.
Because so many engineers have diverse feelings, opinions, and conclusions, the building departments probably would [be best served] by setting a policy that would assure the county that the structural engineer is assured that the design intent, with respect to the manufactured prefabricated components, is being carried out.
Assuming that the contractor is reading the drawings correctly, ordering the trusses and installing them, does not necessarily complete the loop. I feel that this discontinuity, whereas the structural engineer has not reviewed truss shop drawings or erection drawings by others, is a source for future litigation, if not costly mistakes.
Meeting Schedule
|
Date
Location
Time
Speaker
Topic
|
December 9, 1999
Holiday Inn Meeting Room
325 East Flamingo
6:00 p.m. Mixer
6:30 p.m. Business Meeting
6:45 - 8:30 p.m. Presentation
Robert H. Hendershot, President R2H
Construction Defect Litigation
|
SEASoN Officers
|
President
Past President
Vice President
Secretary/Treasurer
Director
|
Dana A. Ames, S.E.
Gregg N. Mendenhall, S.E.
Mark Steel, S.E.
Diane C. Hunt, P.E.
Theodore L. Droessler, P.E.
|
Membership Applications:
Larry D. Hartzell, G.C. Wallace, Inc.
Emmet J. Mielbrecht, Simpson Strong-Tie, Inc.
In compliance with the bylaws, all voting members are hereby advised of this application and any concerns should be addressed to the Board within 30 days:
c/o Rimah Nazzal
SEASoN Membership Chairman
G. C. Wallace, Inc.
1555 South Rainbow Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89146
I am writing this message on December 1, 1999. I cannot believe 1999 only has a month remaining and year 2000 will soon be here. As always, the year passed by far too fast. We will soon know for certain if Y2K is really a problem or not. I am sure 2000 will be a great year for SEASoN.
Hopefully we can continue to grow our membership and all of us become more active. I have been surprised how much effort it takes just to keep the little things on track. The more active participants we have the more we can accomplish as an organization. I would encourage all members to spend some time next year helping SEASoN grow and prosper.
Well, I better get this message in or it may not make it. I would like to wish all of you well. Have a wonderful holiday season and Happy New Year!
Dana A. Ames, S.E., President
A letter was written to Marc Dixon, P.E., of the Clark County Building Department by Richard Balogh, P.E., S.E., of R. L. Balogh Consulting Engineers, Inc. addressing this issue
Our office has recently received plated wood truss submittals from several different truss manufacturers that we consider to be inadequate. These truss designs represented a potential threat to the safety of the general public for the following reasons:
- Engineering design of individual trusses was apparently performed by a technician without the benefit of supervision by a licensed engineer. Design loads applied to the trusses by the technician were typically incorrect, and often dangerously less than the appropriate and correct design loads.
- An engineer had stamped the truss calculations suggesting that he had supervised the engineering work involved in the preparation of the truss design. Upon close inspection of the truss calculation document, fine print revealed that the truss engineer did not review the work of the technician, and simply reviewed the computer output for consistency with the computer input.
During telephone conversations with the several truss engineers whose stamps appeared on the inadequate truss submittals, we were advised that the truss engineers had not seen a set of construction documents for the project. It was clear that the truss submittals were not “pre-engineered” as specified on the structural drawings, and each submittal was promptly rejected. Of the six submittals rejected in September of this year, we have only seen two of the submittals returned. We suspect that the other four truss manufacturers simply side stepped the submittal review process when faced with our opposition, and returned to business as usual without our blessing. Please feel free to contact our office if you require further information regarding pre-engineered wood truss submittals.
The Clark County Building Department recently began trying to get truss designs reviewed by the building designer. They put together seven pages of this proposal with the functional lines:
6.1.1 Clark County review truss design drawings and placements plans for conformance with the UBC and the construction design documents.
6.1.2 Building Designer to review truss calculations package for conformance with the UBC and the construction documents.
This did not specify when the review was to take place, nor what would happen if either party did not approve the plans. SEASoN did not comment on this as it seemed to vague.
John S. Kubota, P.E., S.E.
It has been brought to my attention that the federal government is thinking about mandating the use of FEMA NEHRP design requirements of the design industry nationwide, over the UBC, IBC, and other design codes for local jurisdictions. This is something like ADA being applied on the Architects over the UBC for handicap design. FEMA is offering a course in the use of the design books and charts if enough people sign up for the course.
There are two issues that need to be addressed here:
- Should everyone call or write their congress person and senator to tell them not to let this happen?
- Should we try to get this seminar here to teach the principles of this new seismic design before it gets here?
We should have a discussion about this soon. For those reviewing the various sections of the IBC2000, I will be calling you to keep you working on this. We would like to have two or more sections presented and discussed each meeting early next year.
John S. Kubota, P.E., S.E.
Span-By-Span Construction for I-15/US 95
Interchange Stage 2, Las Vegas, Nevada
The following article by Fred Y. Feng, P.E., of Parsons Brinckerhoff, is provided as a continuing series.
continued from October 1999 issue
Ramp N-W connects north bound I-15 with west bound US 95. It is a double lane ramp structure with a total length of 743 meters and a minimum radius of 350 meters. The gradient varies from +4.89% to –3.56% and the superelevation from +2% to –5.6%. The first span is a cast-in-place concrete box girder. Spans 2 through 9 and 14 through 17 are erected by the span-by-span construction method. Spans 10 through 13 are erected using the balanced cantilever method which is the only balanced cantilever erection in the project. The longest of the spans erected by the span-by-span method occurs crossing I-15 at 48.97 meters. The longest balanced cantilever span is 64.75 meters crossing over US 95 west bound.
Ramp N-MLK connects north bound I-15 to a local access on the west side of I-15 via Martin Luther King Way. This is a single lane structure comprised of 15 spans with a total length of 540 meters and a minimum radius of 140.9 meter. The gradient varies from +5.12% to –7.95%, which is the steepest in the project, and the superelevation from +6% to –6%. The longest span is 42.5 meters.
Ramp W-S connects west bound 95 with south bound I-15. This is a double lane structure with a total length of 584 meters, a minimum radius of 200 meters, and 15 spans. The gradient varies from +4.69% to –3.92% and superelevation from +6% to –6%. The longest span is 44.5 meters. This ramp structure crosses over the steel fabrication plant with several piers located within the fabrication yard. As a result, a fence on the concrete barrier of the ramp is required over this facility.
Ramp S-E connects south bound I-15 with east bound US 95. This is a single lane structure with a total length of 557 meters and a minimum radius of 130 meters (the smallest radius in the project). The first two spans are a cast-in-place box girder, and followed by 13 span-by-span segmental spans. The gradient varies from +5.5% to –7.2% and superelevation from +2% to –8%. The maximum gradient and superelevation occur at the same locations resulting in a compound slope of 10.76% with a corner to corner difference in elevation for a single lane 4 meter segment of 937 millimeters.
One of the difficulties of using segmental construction is the need of specialized construction equipment and skill required. A high degree of geometry control during fabrication and erection of segments is also needed. However, these difficulties can be overcome by aggressive advertisement and invitation of those specialized contractors for the pre-bid conference.
The precast segmental alternative for the Spaghetti Bowl interchange reconstruction was selected over other structure types such as steel plate girder or box girder, cast-in-place concrete box girder, precast I girder or box girder. Alternatives were evaluated on their ability to perform the design function with special emphasis on the areas noted below.
Clearances – The selected alternatives must be able to provide minimum horizontal and vertical clearance as defined by the NDOT Bridge Design and Procedures Manual and local government ordinances. A superstructure type which could not meet the required vertical clearance would not be considered feasible and would not be evaluated. Furthermore, a superstructure type would be eliminated if the available depth was less than the required structure and possible falsework depth.
Seismic Design Requirement – The selected alternatives must meet the seismic design procedures set forth in AASHTO, Division I-A, and NDOT, I-15/US 95 interchange Bridge Design Criteria. In addition, alternatives that facilitate the use of state-of-the-art seismic detailing as determined by current research and proven testing performance will be rated favorably. The alternative selected should have details that lend themselves to ductile behavior and multiple load paths
and, at the same time, are constructable as stated in NDOT’s requirement using Category B for design and Category C in detailing.
Aesthetics – It will influence the public acceptance of the structures in the Spaghetti Bowl project. In highway bridge design, the inclusion of aesthetic features must be balanced by cost, construction, and maintenance concerns. Aesthetic features have been included by grooves, offsets, architectural treatment, and cross sectional changes, column shapes, and curtain wall concealment of expansion segment joints. As per the NDOT preference, the order of the most aesthetically pleasing structure types is as follows: concrete box, steel box, steel I-beam, and precast I-beam. Furthermore, the general structure aesthetic guidelines for evaluating the new bridge are as follows: continuous soffits, sloped exterior girders over verticals, and overhangs. The straight exposed girders on curve sections are not favored.
Constructability – Traffic movement and safety during construction is a major concern for this project. The preferred alternatives will provide adequate traffic safety or enhanced traffic safety for little additional expense. Alternatives which maintain existing traffic movements with the least amount of inconvenience and safety concerns for motorists will be rated favorably. In particular, the use of falsework over I-15 and US 95 and associated freeway ramp structures will only be allowed if 5.03 m (16.5 ft) minimum vertical clearance to falsework can be provided. 4.6 m (15.0 ft) minimum vertical clearance to falsework will be required at local streets. This criteria alone has eliminated certain alternatives from further consideration. Alternatives with a short construction schedule and rapid completion will be rated favorably. Specially, casting segments will be fabricated off site to allow the contractor to work on column foundations. This definitely will expedite the erection. Items considered for this criteria include material lead time, special detailing or construction engineering requirements, any specialized construction equipment or labor requirements, industry experience, and construction duration for each structure type. When considering speed of erection only, steel is considered the most favorable when all materials are fabricated and waiting at the job site when compared to precast segmental and cast-in-place construction. However, when fabrication is included along with total construction time, steel becomes the least preferred method of construction due to the lengthy material lead time and uncertain delivery date involved. Cast-in-place is considered less favorable for long sections due to the limited crew which can operate at one time and the additional time required to form, place reinforcement, place concrete, cure the concrete, post-tension, complete closure pours and remove falsework. However, the cast-in-place construction has been the most widely used bridge superstructure type in the state of Nevada over the last several decades. The construction is well understood by a number of qualified contractors, which results in highly competitive bidding. Thus it was selected for use at gore areas for each ramp structure and precast segmental and conventional concrete construction followed by steel were selected when considering speed of construction.
Meeting Schedule
|
Date
Location
Time
Speaker
Topic
|
October 14, 1999
Holiday Inn Meeting Room
325 East Flamingo
6:00 p.m. Mixer
6:30 p.m. Business Meeting
6:45 - 8:30 p.m. Presentation
Bill de la Garza, Ph.D., S.E.
Wood Connections
|
SEASoN Officers
|
President
Past President
Vice President
Secretary/Treasurer
Director
|
Dana A. Ames, S.E.
Gregg N. Mendenhall, S.E.
Mark Steel, S.E.
Diane C. Hunt, P.E.
Theodore L. Droessler, P.E.
|
Membership Applications:
Richard C. Stone, Western Technologies, Inc.
David E. Nielson, Western Technologies, Inc.
Membership Upgrade Application from Associate to Member CE:
Jaime A. Chang, Willdan Associates
In compliance with the bylaws, all voting members are hereby advised of this application and any concerns should be addressed to the Board within 30 days:
c/o Rimah Nazzal
SEASoN Membership Chairman
G. C. Wallace, Inc.
1555 South Rainbow Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89146
Well, this is the third message for me and I have grown weary of writing about engineering. I thought for a while and decided to write a president’s message about one of my hobbies. Most of us have hobbies. We need them to fill all that spare time we have after work. Yea, right! Anyway, one of my hobbies is investing. I have always been fascinated with the stock market and often times thought it would be fun to be a stock broker. You know, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
Well, since everyone else is predicting what will happen to the stock market, I thought I would give it a try. I am going to save this newsletter, and if I turn out to be right, I will quit my job and start predicting the market for a living. If not, I will forget where I put it but I’m sure someone will remind me that I was wrong.
All the tried and true valuation measures, Price Earnings Ratio, Price Sales Ratio, Book Value, Dividend Yield, Price to Cash Flow and on and on, say the market is overvalued. Yet the market continues its upward trend. Investors have grown accustomed to annualized gains of 20% or more year after year, which is much higher than historic returns. The question we all must ask is, Will this continue? I know all the bulls will say it’s a new era. All those old measures are bogus. Keep your money in the market and over the long run you will do great. Well, I say bull bulls!
Nothing this good lasts forever and the engineer in me says things don’t change that fast. Eventually people will realize that a PE of 100 for the NASDAQ 100 is ludicrous. That means it takes 100 years of the indexes’ earnings to equal the current value of the index. I say protect the money you have made and if you are really brave, get some shorts. A few possibilities for those of us who are not brave enough to short individual stocks are the Prudent Bear fund and the short funds in the Profunds family of funds. You can find these mutual funds on the Internet and they are less risky than shorting individual issues.
Well, only a crazy person would take investing advice from a structural engineer. Remember, this is only my personal opinion and not the opinion of SEASoN. Good luck to all you other investors and time will determine whether or not I lose this article.
Dana A. Ames, S.E., President
The By-Laws Committee proposes the following changes to the by-laws regarding election of officers. We feel the changes are necessary to ensure that new officers are elected and in place prior to SEASoN’s anniversary at the end of February. This would allow the organization to file the correct officers’ names with the Secretary of State and change the signature card on the checking account in a timely manner.
The changes to the by-laws are underlined below. A vote on these changes will be held at the October meeting. The By-Laws Committee recommends a "do pass" vote on these changes.
Article V -
Nominations and Elections of Officers & Representatives
Section 1.
The election of Officers shall be held each year at the regular meeting in the month of February.
Section 2.
Candidates for the offices of President Elect/Vice President and Director shall be nominated and elected in accordance with the following procedure. A nominating committee consisting of 3 MEMBERS shall be nominated and elected by ballot at the December meeting. Nominations for this committee may be made by members of any classification, but only MEMBERS shall be nominated. Incumbent Officers, Directors, and members of the Nominating Committee for the previous year are ineligible for the current Nominating Committee except as follows: the President Elect/Vice President shall be chairman of the committee and the Director may be elected a member of the Nominating Committee. MEMBERS shall vote for 2 from at least 4 nominees. The 2 receiving the highest votes shall be declared elected to the Nominating Committee. Service on this committee shall not affect a MEMBER’S eligibility for office. Before the second Thursday in January, the Nominating Committee shall report its nominations for office – at least 2 names for President Elect/Vice President and at least 2 names for Director. This report shall be sent to the MEMBERS before the third Thursday in January. Any preceding business day may be used for these deadlines, at the discretion of the Nominating Committee. Up to the last Thursday in January, additional nominations may be made by petition of at least 5% of the MEMBERS.
Section 3.
Before the first Thursday in February all MEMBERS shall be sent a ballot listing the nominees for the various offices along with a plain envelope and an outer envelop stamped "Ballot." The marked ballot shall be sealed in the plain envelope, enclosed in the outer envelope, which shall be signed by the voter, and returned to the Association office before noon of the day preceding the regular meeting in February. The ballots shall then be counted by the nominating committee and reported to the Board of Directors. Those receiving the highest votes shall be declared elected at the February meeting. In case of a tie, the President Elect/Vice President shall cast the deciding vote.
Steven C. Goold, P.E.
Span-By-Span Construction for I-15/US 95
Interchange Stage 2, Las Vegas, Nevada
The following article by Fred Y. Feng, P.E., of Parsons Brinckerhoff, will be provided as a continuing series.
Introduction
In an area accustomed to top entertainment "head-liners," the headline currently getting Las Vegas residents’ attention is that relief is coming to the I-15/US 95 interchange. This sytem interchange, commonly referred to as the "Spaghetti Bowl," lies at the geographic center of the Las Vegas Valley and is the central cog in the area’s regional transportation network. As the local population swells, the upgrade of the I-15/US 95 interchange has become Nevada’s number one statewide transportation priority project. The existing Spaghetti Bowl was completed in 1969 when fewer than 30,000 vehicles a day were using the interchange, but with 12 times the traffic volume today, this upgrade in traffic flow is long overdue.
The reconstruction of the I-15/US 95 core interchange in Las Vegas is the first major project in the Western United States to utilize a precast concrete segmental span-by-span construction design as the predominant structure type. There are four major ramp structures: Ramp N-W with 17 spans, and Ramps W-S, N-MLK, and S-E, each with 15 spans (Figure 1). The design was developed using four to five span continuous frame structures with each span length around 40 meters. All spans are constructed by the span-by-span method, except for four spans of Ramp N-W crossing over US 95 which uses balanced cantilever construction. Due to the aggressive construction schedule, the four balanced cantilever spans use an alternative erection method – two cranes from the ground level lifted each segment onto both sides of the pier segment as a repetitive operation which simulated the original balanced cantilever construction scheme. Furthermore, in order to reduce additional work for stress analyses, a counterweight was added to compensate for the additional deflection that was expected from the proposed launching gantry reaction. However, the overhead gantry was used to erect last segments for the completion of balanced cantilever spans. Another point worth mentioning is that Ramp N-W span 1 was designed as a cast-in-place box girder which allowed the contractor to immediately start building footings, wingwalls, and abutment along the first span with conventional methodology. In addition, this approach will not only avoid using the double segmental boxes by cutting each side of the wings to match the deck width of the irregular gore area but also provide an area for launching the gantry assembly. The gore area always presents problems, especially in the segmental box due to geometry control associated with superelevation transition.
LAS VEGAS, NV, October 4, 1999 …..Robert D. Weber, director of the Clark County Building Department, has been named the 1999 recipient of the Phil Roberts “Code Official of the Year” Award. This award is presented by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) to a building official for continued leadership of and service to the building safety and building code development field. ICBO is a professional service organization with 16,000 members, dedicated to public safety in the built environment through development and promotion of uniform building codes and standards. ICBO codes are adopted in more than 37 states.
In presenting this award, ICBO officers stated: “Robert Weber is the consummate building official, balancing the many diverse demands of one of the fastest growing jurisdictions, which currently employs over 240 individuals directly and administers more than 850 special inspectors. He has ceaselessly strived to upgrade and expand the image of the building official through extensive use of public relations, education and communication. During his tenure, the role of the building official has been elevated from an obscure, bureaucratic position to the forefront of the development community’s awareness.”
An active member of ICBO for over 21 years, Weber was a member of the ICBO Board of Directors for seven years, as well as chairman and member of numerous other committees. As Chairman of the ICC Building Performance Code Committee, he is credited with pioneering work on performance codes, which increase the opportunities for innovation in building design.
Robert Weber, P.E., has been the certified building official (C.B.O.) for Clark County, Nevada, and the county building department’s director for 20 years. Clark County covers 7,600 square miles of Southern Nevada and includes the Las Vegas Strip.
LAS VEGAS, NV, Sept. 9, 1999…..Dean O. Friedli has been appointed an Assistant Director of the Clark County Building Department. Friedli’s duties will include all permitting, plan review, records and automation activities. The divisional managers of the Permit Application Center and Plan Review will report to Friedli, as well as Computing Services.
Employed with Clark County for fifteen years, Dean Friedli has been the manager of the Permit Application Center of the Building Department for the past ten years. Prior to that, he was a senior management analyst in the County Manager’s office and a business officer with the Department of Parks and Recreation.
Friedli’s appointment to this position was effective as of August 16. He holds a master’s degree in business administration and a bachelor’s degree in science from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Dean Friedli and his wife, Cathy, have two teenage daughters.
Meeting Schedule
|
Date
Location
Time
Speaker
Topic
|
August 12, 1999
Holiday Inn Meeting Room
325 East Flamingo
6:00 p.m. Mixer
6:30 p.m. Business Meeting
6:45 - 8:30 p.m. Presentation
John G. Wilson
Seismic Retrofit Design Guidelines for Historic Concrete Arch Bridges
|
SEASoN Officers
|
President
Past President
Vice President
Secretary/Treasurer
Director
|
Dana A. Ames, S.E.
Gregg N. Mendenhall, S.E.
Mark Steel, S.E.
Diane C. Hunt, P.E.
Theodore L. Droessler, P.E.
|
Membership upgrade
Steven C. Goold, Drottar-Priniski Associates has been approved for a membership upgrade from Member CE to Member SE. Congratulations, Steven!
In compliance with the bylaws, all voting members are hereby advised of this application and any concerns should be addressed to the Board within 30 days:
c/o Rimah Nazzal
SEASoN Membership Chairman
G. C. Wallace, Inc.
1555 South Rainbow Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89146
We welcome the following new members:
Chuck Campbell, Fibermesh Company, Associate
Daryl Simpson, Trus Joist MacMillan, Associate
Why It’s Good to be an Engineer
There are many moments during the course of a year when I wonder why I decided on engineering as a
profession. During these moments I could be working feverishly to meet an impossible deadline,
detailing fixes for a contractor who decided that the contract documents are only good for starting
fires, or wondering how I possibly made a mistake, and even more importantly, how to fix it.
As engineers we spend our days solving problems. Sometimes solutions are easy to come by and other
times the answer is elusive. We record our thoughts on paper using both drawings and written words so
that others may utilize them to create something. The item created might be as simple as a retaining
wall or as complex and impressive as the Golden Gate Bridge. For me, finishing a set of construction
documents is rewarding, but the real reward is watching my thoughts become reality.
While working so hard to finish a set of documents so that the next set can be started, it is easy to
forget that completing construction documents is not the real reward of being an engineer. Whenever I
drive over a bridge or walk into a building, which I had a part in creating, it always makes me feel
good. So the next time you are wondering why you chose the engineering profession, take a few hours and
go visit a project you completed the plans for a while back. While you’re there you will remember why
it’s good to be an engineer.
Dana A. Ames, S.E., President
The Technical/Government committee got together on July 19, 1999 to discuss two items. The first was a
proposed new county “Standard Plans” item. The second was to follow up on the suggestion made at the
last SEASoN meeting when we were asked to review the 2000 IBC for impact to the Structural engineering
community.
The first item was the standard plan item. This committee thanks Kevin McOsker from Clark County for
providing a draft letter to us for review. The attached letter incorporates some of the committee’s
recommendations sent back to the Clark County Building Department. I would like everyone at the next
SEASoN meeting to be prepared to discuss this letter and vote for an approval of a letter of this
nature. A significant amount of time was spent relating horror stories of what has happened to people
of this committee (design professionals) with standard plans used by contractors without our knowledge
or approval.
Then we began the discussion of the 2000 IBC review. We asked for more volunteers at the last meeting
to help in this review. I would first like to again thank Kevin McOsker for his help in getting a copy
of the proposed code for this committee, with names and addresses at ICBO. The following people have
taken the following subjects to review and they will ask their friend and associates to help them review
their section.
| Wind | Bill de la Garza |
| Seismic Zones | Ray Brannen |
| Masonry | Diane Hunt |
| Steel | Dan Campbell |
| Wood | Kubota and Associates |
We still need help to review:
Concrete
Soil and Foundations
Seismic Design
Testing and Inspections
Chapter 16 – Loads, Soil, Rain and Flood
We will be meeting fairly often to go over how we are doing and what further help we may need. Please
contact me or someone on this committee to help.
John S. Kubota, P.E., S.E.
June 10, 1999
Meeting Schedule
|
Date
Location
Time
Speaker
Topic
|
June 10, 1999
Holiday Inn Meeting Room
325 East Flamingo
6:00 p.m. Mixer
6:30 p.m. Business Meeting
6:45 - 8:30 p.m. Presentation
Dr. S. K. Ghosh
Investigative Reports on the Kobe, Japan and Northridge, CA Earthquakes
|
SEASoN Officers
|
President
Past President
Vice President
Secretary/Treasurer
Director
|
Dana A. Ames, S.E.
Gregg N. Mendenhall, S.E.
Mark Steel, S.E.
Diane C. Hunt, P.E.
Theodore L. Droessler, P.E.
|
The following individuals have applied for membership in SEASoN:
Daryl Simpson, Trus Joist MacMillan
Chuck Campbell, Fibermesh Company
In compliance with the bylaws, all voting members are hereby advised of this application and any concerns should be addressed to the Board within 30 days:
c/o Rimah Nazzal
SEASoN Membership Chairman
G. C. Wallace, Inc.
1555 South Rainbow Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89146
We welcome the following new members:
Raymond Brannen, Buena Engineers, Inc., Member CE
Daniel A. Bartlett, Wright Structural Engineers, Inc., Associate
Chris Zweifel, Wright Structural Engineers, Inc., Associate
Jason R. Dias, UNLV Civil Engineering, Student
Scott E. Jawbs, Development Services of Nevada, Associate
Stephanie Cannon, Development Services of Nevada, Associate
As SEASoN begins its fourth year in existence, I think it is important to look back at the growth and development of the organization. Under the leadership of Brent, Bill and Gregg, SEASoN has grown from just an idea to an organization with over 75 active members. These members have formed numerous committees, organized a full-day seminar, and regularly showcased relevant and interesting speakers at bi-monthly meetings. I would like to thank all of those members who have spent countless hours transforming SEASoN from an idea into the vibrant organization it is today.
The question we must ask now is what do we, the members, want SEASoN to look like three years from now? The structural engineering profession is facing many challenges. We face technical, political and business issues, which will all affect the future of our chosen profession. I believe it is important that we identify key issues and focus our limited time and energy on these. Going forward, I would urge each of you to voice your opinions as to what issues you feel are most important. If some key items that are important to the majority of members can be identified, establishing effective committees should be much easier and we will be able to make some positive changes for the good of the profession.
Where Should the Money Go?
I would like the membership to come up with some ideas for spending some of the funds we currently have. As a nonprofit organization we may face fines if we carry a large balance of funds forward at the end of each year. Currently we have a balance of approximately $7,000 in our account. Several ideas currently suggested are the purchase of study manuals for the S.E. examination, payment of speakers for the proposed half-day seminars, and sponsorship of a small scholarship for a student studying structural engineering at UNLV. We will be looking for additional suggestions at the June meeting.
Calling All Political Activists
Rita Monroe, executive director of ACEC, is currently organizing a group to coordinate the lobbying efforts of the various local engineering associations. She is looking for one or two volunteers from SEASoN to attend a meeting in late June or early August. If you would be interested in participating in this group, please contact me so I can forward the information to Rita. This is a good chance to attack some important issues while pooling our resources with other engineering groups.
__Dana A. Ames, S.E., President
The following is an edited version of a letter I received from Gary L. Graham, P.E., of Farmington, New Mexico, regarding his opinion of the PDH requirements being imposed by his state engineering board. I have heard many of our members make comments similar to the items he discusses. While I do not necessarily agree totally with him, I thought that inclusion of his letter in our newsletter might stir further discussion and, if deemed necessary by our membership, be a catalyst for positive change.
I am proud to be a Registered Engineer, and part of the “stock and trade” of being an engineer is to solve problems. In my opinion, engineers have a problem. We have succumbed to an unwieldy policy, which dictates that we are not fit to practice our profession, unless we participate in compulsory “continuing education.” This may sound like a good idea, but how well does it work?
- It isn’t really continuing education — so it was renamed “professional development,” which includes holding offices in organizations, publishing articles, etc., etc. Presumably, broadening the scope of the definition justified expanding the number of requisite hours.
- A new industry has “sprung up overnight” — educational seminars. (And I use the word “educational” loosely.” The cost/benefit ratio for 95% of the offerings available is outrageous. In fact, most of these seminars would disappear if they had not been made a requirement.
- After at least four years of participating in this “grand experiment,” I defy anyone to argue that the cause of professionalism in engineering or surveying has been promoted — or significantly changed, for that matter.
- We are now obliged to engage in another “paper shuffle,” namely to be able to document PDH hours.
- For all the lip service given to pursuing “excellence” in the profession, we have become much more aggressive in policing the meaningless PDH hours than we have in policing malpractice and “practicing without a license.”
I believe that we have allowed this policy to be foisted upon us because we didn’t understand the potential implications to individual practitioners and to the profession — or because we didn’t want to take precious time to attend hearings and resist its implementation. We always assume that the individuals we have chosen to represent us will have our best interests at heart. But however well-meaning they may be, they do make mistakes; and the current PDH program is, in my opinion, a colossal mistake and a dismal failure (unless you are conducting and/or selling a seminar series).
How can we modify or “get rid of” this oppression? It won’t be easy. The only recourse we have available is to take the initiative to change the policy and to organize engineers in other states to do the same or to refuse to document our “professional development” hours when we renew our registration. Of course, doing the latter would theoretically make us unfit to practice engineering — not because we lack competence, but because we don’t follow “the rules.” We are educated, tested, and licensed to assure the public that we possess the competence to protect their health, safety, and welfare. If we are good engineers, we read professional journals and seek information on topics which affect our performance as engineers. Such educational “quotas” as PDH hours will not turn bad engineers into good engineers, nor do anything except impose financial, record keeping, and “waste of time” burdens upon the entire profession.
__L. Brent Wright, S.E.
- At Christmas, it goes without saying that you will be the one to find the burned out bulb in the string of Christmas lights.
- Choosing to buy flowers for your girlfriend or to spend the money to upgrade your RAM is a moral dilemma.
- Everyone else on the Alaskan Cruise is on deck gazing at the scenery, and you are still on a personal tour of the engine room.
- In college, you thought Spring Break was metal fatigue failure.
- The salespeople at the local computer store can’t answer any of your questions.
- You are at an air show and know how fast the skydivers are falling.
- You bought your wife a new CD ROM drive for her birthday.
- You can quote scenes from any Monty Python movie.
- You can type 70 words per minute but can’t read your own handwriting.
- You comment to your wife that her straight hair is nice and parallel.
- You go on the rides at Disneyland and sit backwards in the chairs to see how they do the special effects.
- You have saved every power cord from all your broken appliances.
- You have more friends on the Internet than in real life.
- You know what http:// stands for.
- You look forward to Christmas only to put together the kids’ toys.
- You see a good design and still have to change it.
- You spent more on your calculator than you did on your wedding ring.
- You still own a slide rule and you know how to use it.
- You think that when people around you yawn, it’s because they didn’t get enough sleep.
- You window shop at Radio Shack.
- You’re both in the backseat of your car, she’s looking wistfully at the moon, and you’re trying to locate a geosynchronous satellite.
- Your laptop computer costs more than your car.
- Your wife hasn’t the foggiest idea of what you do at work.
- You’ve already calculated how much you make per second.
- You’ve tried to repair a $5 radio.
|
Date |
Topic |
Speaker |
Location |
|
August 8, 1996 |
Contract Review Workshop |
Lora Peluso, L.R. House Insurance Company
Steve Lane, Hale, Lane, Peek, Dennison & Howard |
UNLV Building A |
|
October 10, 1996 |
ANSI/ASCE Wind Load Provisions |
Bill de la Garza, Ph.D., S.E. |
UNLV Building A |
|
December 12, 1996 |
Hilti Fastening Systems |
Joe Kammerer, P.E. |
UNLV Building B172 |
|
February 13, 1997 |
Stratosphere Design |
L. Brent Wright, S.E. |
UNLV Building A |
|
April 10, 1997 |
Open Forum Discussion |
Kris Barker, P.E. |
UNLV Building A |
|
June 12, 1997 |
General Discussion |
Building Official Forum |
UNLV Building B-178 |
|
August 14, 1997 |
Analysis and Design of Post-Tensioned Floor Systems |
Bijan Oliver Aalami, Ph.D. |
UNLV Building A-107 |
|
October 9, 1997 |
Sulfate Problems in Concrete |
Harvey Haines, Ph.D. |
Holiday Inn
325 E. Flamingo |
|
December 4, 1997 |
Engineering Societies’ Charity Night |
---- |
Palace Station |
|
February 12, 1998 |
Implosion of Buildings by Controlled Demolition |
Mark Loizeaux |
Holiday Inn
325 E. Flamingo |
|
April 9, 1998 |
Design and Erection of the Rock Cut Bridge |
Jerry Nichols |
Holiday Inn
325 E. Flamingo |
|
June 11, 1998 |
---- |
---- |
Holiday Inn
325 E. Flamingo |
|
August 13, 1998 |
Strong-Wall |
Karen Colonias, V.P.
Simpson Strong-Tie |
Holiday Inn
325 E. Flamingo |
|
October 8, 1998 |
Pre-Engineered Shearwalls, The Hardy Frame |
Bill Hailey
USP Lumber Connectors |
Holiday Inn
325 E. Flamingo |
|
December 10, 1998 |
UNLV Structural Engineering Dept. Update |
Dr. Gerry Frederick |
Holiday Inn
325 E. Flamingo |
|
February 11, 1999 |
Hollow Structural Sections |
Robert W. Pyle, AISC |
Holiday Inn
325 E. Flamingo |
|
April 15, 1999 |
Legislative Updates |
Open Forum |
Holiday Inn
325 E. Flamingo |
|
June 10, 1999 |
Investigative Reports on the Kobe, Japan and Northridge, CA Earthquakes |
Dr. S. K. Ghosh |
Holiday Inn
325 E. Flamingo |
Meeting Schedule
|
Date
Location
Time
Speaker
|
April 15, 1999
Holiday Inn Meeting Room
325 East Flamingo
6:00 p.m. Mixer
6:15 p.m. Business Meeting
6:30 - 9:00 p.m. Presentation
To be announced
|
SEASoN Officers
|
President
Past President
Vice President
Secretary/Treasurer
Director
|
Gregg N. Mendenhall, S.E.
Dana A. Ames, S.E.
Dan Campbell, S.E.
William de la Garza, S.E.
Diane C. Hunt, P.E.
|
The following individuals have applied for membership in SEASoN:
Daniel A. Bartlett, Wright Structural Engineers, Inc.
Raymond Brannen, Buena Engineers, Inc.
Stephanie Cannon, Development Services of Nevada
Jason R. Dias, UNLV Civil Engineering (student)
Scott E. Jawbs, Development Services of Nevada
Chris Zweifel, Wright Structural Engineers, Inc.
In compliance with the bylaws, all voting members are hereby advised of this application and any concerns should be addressed to the Board within 30 days:
c/o Rimah Zazzal
SEASoN Membership Chairman
G. C. Wallace, Inc.
1555 South Rainbow Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89146
We welcome the following new member:
Jonathan Grantham
G.C. Wallace, Inc.
This past week I had the opportunity to go to Carson City with John Kubota and Regina Pierce, Co-Chairmen of our Legislative Committee, to attend a State Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing. The subject of the hearing was Senate Bill 380 which deals with "the establishment of a screening panel to review claims for damages resulting from a constructional defect caused by an act or omission of a professional engineer or professional land surveyor." The bill essentially calls for a screening panel made up of professional engineers and attorneys that would consider the merits of the claims against the engineer. The panel would determine whether or not the engineer has probable liability in the case. The plaintiff can continue the action against the engineer regardless of the finding of the screening panel; however, if the panel has determined the engineer is not responsible for any construction defects, the plaintiff may suffer consequences for pursuing the case if the engineer is ultimately found not liable by a legal court.
This bill is not a complete cure for injustices suffered by engineers in the current legal system, but it is a step in the right direction. It allows the engineer to present his case to a panel with technical expertise; it facilitates the resolution of claims early in the case, which can greatly reduce legal fees; and it provides for possible consequences to those who would file frivolous and unfounded claims.
John and I were able to testify before the Senate Committee, and I expressed the support of SEASoN for its passage. If the bill makes it through committee to the Senate floor, there will be much work ahead to get it passed into law. I would hope that many of you could get behind some of this legislation that would be of benefit to our profession. Regina was able to introduce, as a matter of record to the committee, letters from several members of SEASoN in support of the bill. I'm sure Regina would love to hear from you regarding this and other legislative matters.
There are a number of bills before the Senate and Assembly that affect the practice of professional engineering. There is an excellent Web site where you can find the text of these bills and other information regarding this legislative session: www.leg.state.nv.us. Look for bills AB116, AB87, AB225, SB380, SB409, SB286, AB442 and AB482. Get involved!
__Gregg N. Mendenhall, S.E.
The Technical/Government Committee met on March 10, 1999. The first topic discussed was what further to do about a wind map or description of wind zones. We argued that we should be developing a broad approximate map, while others thought about just a better description of different wind zones. The idea of different wind zones on different faces of the same building was acknowledged as not what the present code would allow. The general idea is that the center of the Las Vegas Valley is Zone B; around the airport, within 1/2 mile or so of the airport is Zone C; and all other areas of Clark County should be considered Zone C. Use of aerial maps to lay out the limits of these zones was discussed. It was agreed that this is all worthless unless SEASoN can get the Government agencies in their next code review cycle to adopt this notion. So, we agree to have a written proposal for the next committee meeting.
I recently saw a screen wall that had been approved by the Las Vegas Field inspectors, where the footings were partly exposed and on a sloped bank. I asked how we can get the inspectors to understand what we feel is important in construction. Can SEASoN give classes or seminars to field inspectors on what we feel is important? Important issues for retaining walls include the reinforcing bar placement and clear coverage requirements. Regina Pierce suggested we take the Simpson Strong-Tie Approach, and take food and refreshments to a gathering of inspectors and present open forums of discussion with the inspectors. Or should we look at getting a slot of time in the next EduCode Seminar presented by ICBO for the plans checkers and inspectors? Does SEASoN have the money to sponsor a meal seminar? Who would develop the program and who would present it, how often, and to which groups? This will be looked into and discussed further in future meetings.
Paul Pritcher asked about getting other municipalities to adopt the City of Las Vegas requirement for submitting truss calculations with the plans for building permit application. Too often the trusses do not agree with what the engineer designed in terms of layout or loads. And the engineer does not see what is to be built until a problem develops. Paul will look into how the City of Las Vegas initiated the policy of early truss calculations submittal and review by the engineer of record. Adding the truss company's name to the drawings was suggested to help the truss company ensure that they get the job after the building permit is pulled. More on this at the next meeting.
__John S. Kubota, P.E., S.E.
The National Council of Structural Engineers (NCSEA) has a few items of interest for our members this month. Their monthly newsletter is attached. One item is a vote for dues that will increase the yearly dues. The Board of Directors has voted to approve this motion. The other two items are in the NCSEA monthly Moments. One is for a motion by SEAOC regarding a two-tier national Structural Engineers Practice Act. The other is a proposed OSHA standard for steel erection safety. Copies of these two motions will be available upon request.
__William de la Garza, S.E., Ph.D.
The Bylaw Committee will have changes in the bylaws ready for your review shortly. We must change our election dates to coincide with our anniversary date on file with the Secretary of State. Watch for it.
__William de la Garza, S.E., Ph.D.
There are several bills of interest to SEASoN members pending in Carson City, and Greg Mendenhall has copies of them. The language is incomprehensible to me, but they involve construction defect laws, tort reform, and a bill that established procedures for negligent design documents. It would be important at this time for this association to decide what, if anything, we should attempt to do. Lobbying is out of the question, but letters to your representatives may be in order.
__William de la Garza, S.E., Ph.D.
The changes to Table 16-D in the Southern Nevada Building Code amendments are proposed to be taken from the draft of the 2000 International Building Code and are going to increase the allowable deflections on some members to as much as L/60. There are other changes.
The changes that are being proposed by the metal building industry, which allow them much higher deflections, expose a familiar SEOR problem. If you seal drawings as the SEOR and you approve the use of a metal building that uses these deflection limits, then you will be bound by any consequences. It may be that any problems from these deflection limits will find their way into your wallet or purse because of the project responsibility that you have.
It would be prudent for each of you to familiarize yourself with these changes, be prepared for the consequences, or at least be aware of potential problems. When a problem surfaces on a project using these deflection limits, you, as the SEOR will have to defend these values.
__William de la Garza, S.E., Ph.D.
The following members are more than 6 months in arrears in paying the annual dues and, therefore, per Article III, Section 3 of the bylaws, they cease to be members of the Association.
If arrears are paid prior to the end of the fiscal year, the member may be reinstated at the discretion of the Board of Directors. The fiscal year of the Association is from the first day of June to the last day of May of the following year.
Carlos Banchik
Fred Hilpert
Kris M. Barker
Mahmoud Kassraian
Lilian Beltran
Eric Hamilton Lyon
Thomas R. Buist
Nenad M. Mirkovic
Daniel M. Cashdan
Theresa C. Mordaunt
David Chase
John K. Parsons
Charles E. Feddersen
Mohammed Thomad
Fred Y. Feng
Farro Tofighi
Robert Hendershot
Home
About Us...
Officers and Committee members
Announcements
Membership Application
Advertising Form
Advertising Cost
Latest Newsletter
Previous Newsletters