| Date |
Text |
| 2002-03-13 00:00:00 | THE PLANS SIGNED, SEALED AND DATED BY |
| | JOSEPH T. LATERZA, PE MARCH 8, 2002 |
| | CONTINUE TO HAVE INCOMPLETE AND |
| | INCORRECT INFORMATION.THIS IS THE |
| | FIFTH REJECTION AND IS BEING FILED WITH |
| | THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL |
| | ENGINEERS. |
| | |
| | |
| | THE LETTER ATTACHED TO THOSE PLANS |
| | TITLED "ATTENTION HAROLD PISKURA" SEEKS |
| | TO |
| | ADDRESS PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENTS.THE |
| | ENGINEER ALLEGES "RECOGNITION" AND |
| | "APPROVAL" IN ACCORDANCE WITH NER |
| | REPORT405 AND THE METRO-DADE ACCEPTANCE |
| | REPORT#99-0223.07 |
| | |
| | 1BOTHREPORTS SPECIFY A MINIMUM OF |
| | 20GAUGE METAL STUDS.THE LATERZA PLAN |
| | SPECIFIES A 25 GAUGE METAL STUD WHICH |
| | IS OF LESS MATERIALVALUE. |
| | |
| | 2BOTH REPORTS REQUIRE THE |
| | INCORPORATION OF 5/8 INCH PLYWOOD |
| | SHEATHING SUBSTRATE AS A CONDITION OF |
| | USE FOR THE "HARDIPANEL" TO COMPLY WITH |
| | THOSE LISTINGS.HERE, THE ENGINEER |
| | PROPOSES THE SUBSTITUTION OF "DUROCK" |
| | FOR THAT OF THE PLYWOOD.LATERZA |
| | PROVIDES NOTHING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT |
| | "DUROCK" IS AN EQUAL AND ALTERNATE |
| | MATERIAL TO THE PLYWOOD, (STRUCTURAL |
| | PANELS) SPECIFIED IN THE ACCEPTANCE |
| | REPORTS. |
| | |
| | THE ENGINEER PROPOSES ATTACHING THE |
| | "DUROCK" TO THE METAL STUDS OVER TWO |
| | LAYERS OF TYPE X DRYWALL WITH TYPE "S" |
| | DRYWALL SCREWS SPACE 12" CENTER TO |
| | CENTER.THE "HARDIPANEL" IS THEN TO BE |
| | APPLIED USING "ET-F PIN 2 1/2" LONG X 0. |
| | 10 KNURLED SHANK X 0.25 HD PIN FASTNER |
| | ES 4144 4" OC EDGE 8" OC FIELD ( PER |
| | NER-405 REPORT) SEE ATTACHED SPECS" |
| | |
| | 3DUROCK, A US GYPSUM PRODUCT,HAS ITS |
| | OWN LISTINGS WITH RECOGNIZED AGENCIES, |
| | INCLUDING SBCCI.THESE WERE NOT |
| | INCLUDED WITH THE PLANS SUBMITTAL. |
| | THOSE LISTINGS FOR EXTERIOR USE OF THAT |
| | PRODUCT REQUIRE A PROPRIETARY OR |
| | CORROSION RESISTANT FASTENER AND A |
| | WATERPROOF BARRIER.THE FASTENER |
| | SPACING IN THOSE LISTINGS ARE A MAXIMUM |
| | OF 8" OC |
| | WHICH DOES NOT COMPARE FAVORABLY WITH |
| | THE ENGINEER'S SPECIFICATION OF AN |
| | DRYWALL SCREW INTENDED FOR INTERIOR USE |
| | AND AT A 50% GREATER SPACING. |
| | |
| | 4THE ET&F PIN THAT THE ENGINEER |
| | PROPOSES ATTACHING THE HARDIPANEL TO |
| | THE WALL SYSTEM IS A PNEUMATICALLY |
| | DRIVEN FASTENER INTENDED FOR THE |
| | INSTALLATION OF GYPSUM LIKE MATERIALS |
| | TO METAL STUDS. |
| | |
| | TO MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT SUCH A |
| | FASTENER APPLIED IN THE "FIELD 8" OC" |
| | AND TO HAVE ANY STRUCTURAL VALUE WHEN |
| | LOADED IN WITHDRAWL, FROM DRYWALL AND |
| | DUROCK CANNOT BE CONSIDERED GOOD |
| | ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT AND IS IN DIRECT |
| | CONTRADICTION OF THE EVALUATION REPORTS |
| | THAT JOSEPH LATERZA, PE |
| | SAYS ARE HIS RECOGNIZED METHODOLOGIES. |
| | |
| | THE USE OF THESE PRODUCTS IS NOT |
| | ALLOWED UNLESS THEY ARE USED IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR LISTINGS, OR |
| | SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS AN ALTERNATE |
| | METHOD AS PROVIDED FOR IN SBC 103.7. |
| | |
| | TO DATE NEITHER OF THESE OPTIONS HAS |
| | BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. |
