Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Fwd: Re: building code minimums for wood frame

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01BC21DD.9E890480
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Raghu Pendyala wrote
"I disagree with that engineer entirely. What's stipulated in 
codes( or for voluntary design guideline) is not what the engineer 
should always design to. These documents contain minimum provisions 
which is some case may not be adequate. At the end of the day no 
matter what the codes or who says what, it is the engineer who should 
understand, know and  accepts responsibilities for his/her designs.  

As a responsible and compentent engineer he/she should have the 
courage of conviction for their designs and not at all be intimidated 
by developers. If you get sued prove your case."

I agree with the first paragraph entirely. I would approach the second
paragraph with much apprehension inasmuch as this will likely be the first
and last job done for that client. Courage of conviction is fine if you
have the only engineering practice in the area. Better yet, be creative
enough in your design to find the point that balances maximized safety with
minimized cost. Each of us that studied numerical methods knows that this
line exists. It is very easy to design based upon "by experience" methods
where we choose the "over-design" knowing it will work to save the extra
time it takes to run-the-numbers. I have seen much of this and in some
cases have been guilty of doing it myself. I justify some of this by the
thought " what's a few extra cubic feet of concrete?", or a few extra bars
or possibly design for a deeper beam section to minimize visible deflection
when a client does not really care. How about designing an HD7A where an
HD2A may work if we spent the time to consider the load above the wall for
resistence to uplift.
I use a couple of shearwall design programs, one of which I wrote, that
takes into consideration the reaction off the end of a header to reduce the
uplift on the wall. 
My point is that many of us can "tweak" a design and provide a safe
product. It takes spending a little more time punching numbers.
Finally, Mr. Pendyala, I wish I had the type of client that was so enamored
with my ability that he would rather give into my demands rather than go up
the street to my competitor who will happily design the way he wants.

Dennis Wish PE


------=_NextPart_000_01BC21DD.9E890480
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Lucida Casual">Raghu Pendyala wrote<br>&quot;I =
disagree with that engineer entirely. What's stipulated in <br>codes( or =
for voluntary design guideline) is not what the engineer <br>should =
always design to. These documents contain minimum provisions <br>which =
is some case may not be adequate. At the end of the day no <br>matter =
what the codes or who says what, it is the engineer who should =
<br>understand, know and &nbsp;accepts responsibilities for his/her =
designs. &nbsp;<br><br>As a responsible and compentent engineer he/she =
should have the <br>courage of conviction for their designs and not at =
all be intimidated <br>by developers. If you get sued prove your =
case.&quot;<br><br>I agree with the first paragraph entirely. I would =
approach the second paragraph with much apprehension inasmuch as this =
will likely be the first and last job done for that client. Courage of =
conviction is fine if you have the only engineering practice in the =
area. Better yet, be creative enough in your design to find the point =
that balances maximized safety with minimized cost. Each of us that =
studied numerical methods knows that this line exists. It is very easy =
to design based upon &quot;by experience&quot; methods where we choose =
the &quot;over-design&quot; knowing it will work to save the extra time =
it takes to run-the-numbers. I have seen much of this and in some cases =
have been guilty of doing it myself. I justify some of this by the =
thought &quot; what's a few extra cubic feet of concrete?&quot;, or a =
few extra bars or possibly design for a deeper beam section to minimize =
visible deflection when a client does not really care. How about =
designing an HD7A where an HD2A may work if we spent the time to =
consider the load above the wall for resistence to uplift.<br>I use a =
couple of shearwall design programs, one of which I wrote, that takes =
into consideration the reaction off the end of a header to reduce the =
uplift on the wall. <br>My point is that many of us can =
&quot;tweak&quot; a design and provide a safe product. It takes spending =
a little more time punching numbers.<br>Finally, Mr. Pendyala, I wish I =
had the type of client that was so enamored with my ability that he =
would rather give into my demands rather than go up the street to my =
competitor who will happily design the way he wants.<br><br>Dennis Wish =
PE<br><br><font size=3D2 color=3D"#000080"><br></p>
</font></font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC21DD.9E890480--



--- Internet Message Header Follows ---
Received: from server1.seaoc.org (bqe.com [204.140.166.34])
	by host1.texramp.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA11198
	for <rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 01:09:12 -0600 (CST)
Received: from key.cyberg8t.com by server1.seaoc.org (NTList 3.02.10) id
ja004351; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:06:14 -0800
Received: from Cyberg8t.cyberg8t.com (pdhost05.cyberg8t.com [207.67.173.14])
by key.cyberg8t.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11092 for
<seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:04:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199702240704.XAA11092(--nospam--at)key.cyberg8t.com>
From: "Dennis S. Wish PE" <wish(--nospam--at)cyberg8t.com>
To: "SEAOC Listservice" <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
Subject: Re: building code minimums for wood frame
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 23:02:19 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1160
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BC21DD.9E890480"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
Error-To: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
X-Loop: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
X-Info: [SEAOC]
Owner: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
X-POP3-Rcpt: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
X-Sender: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
Precedence: list
X-ListMember: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org [seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org]


__________________________________________________

Richard Lewis, P.E.
Missionary TECH Team
rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org

The service mission like-minded Christian organizations
may turn to for technical assistance and know-how.