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]
Lynn Howard wrote:
> If you want to take significant steps in increasing the quality of
> Structural Engineering, I would suggest the following steps be taken:
> 1.  Require licensed structural engineers to sign structural drawings
> and calculations on all structures, including single family residential.

This would be fairly easy to enact by simply adopting the California
of the UBC. I suggested this (informally) at a SEAOSC dinner meeting
after Northridge. The concept was really "poo-pooed". While I certainly
that adopting the CA version (particularly in seismic zones 3 and 4)
reduce damage to structures (due to S.E.R. as well as testing and
I also realize that it would eliminate several well qualified engineers
posess the C.E. only. We CERTAINLY should disqualify Architects. I know
out there, but in my 20 years, I haven't personally met one who could
a wood beam, much less perform a seismic analysis. Maybe C.E.'s with 10
I don't know. I don't like the fact that a C.E. can stamp and sign plans
years out of school.

> 2.  Make the C.E. exam more difficult to pass, possibly having a special
> section on structures required to be passed if you intend to take the SE
> exam in the future. [the SE exam is already tough enough, no need to
> mess with that:)]

There are a LOT of C.E.s out there who don't care about structures. I've
never understood the relationship between the two. I believe the only
there is with making structurals take the C.E. is to make them wait and
experience. I would support a method whereby one could get a S.E.
without a
C.E., much like one can get a Phd. w/o a Masters. If you REALLY want to
the supply-demand curve, make the S.E. exam required every 4 years!!!

> 3.  Make the E.I.T exam more difficult to pass.

Same as comment above.
> 4.  Require 4 years of experience between taking the E.I.T exam and the
> C.E. exam.

I think this is in the works and I support it. There currently is a
of the Business and Professions Code. I'm not sure about the entire
content of
the changes (I just know one of my areas of interests - better
protection for
the word "engineer" is not happening), but I received a name of a
contact person
regarding the re-write. His name is Kevin Schunke at (916)-263-2020.
interested might want to contact him regarding the changes.

> 5.  Require that a University degree be required to take the E.I.T.
> exam.  The University Engineering program must meet certain minimum
> standards to qualify as a qualified University degree.

I think this is already the case, at least in California.

> 6.  Require some kind of continuing education for those who hold their
> SE license.  So many credits would be required before an SE could renew
> his license.

I think this is in the works also. I'm not sure how effective it would
be, but
it won't hurt (as long as I could do mine in Maui!!)

> This would make it much more difficult for people to qualify as a person
> who could do structural design.  No more Architects, GeoTechnical,
> Mechanical Engineers, or Civil Engineers doing structural design.
> This would not eliminate all sub-standard designs, but it would in my
> opinion, significantly increase the overall quality of structural
> engineering.
> As a side benefit to those who would still be qualified to do this kind
> of work, you can bet that the fees to do this kind of work would go up
> significantly.  Why you ask?  Because we will be tampering with the
> "supply - demand" curve.  We will decrease the supply of people who can
> do this kind of work, and that will result in an increase in the price
> of that service.

I hate to keep going back to this (not really), but, if we were paid
more, we
could afford to spend more time on a project. I know that there is not a
direct coorelation between the two, but we engineers are pretty sick
wise) people. We study problems even when we are out of budget. It just
be nice to relieve some of the financial pressure from doing so.

Bill Allen

--- Internet Message Header Follows ---
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA16060
	for <rlewis(--nospam--at)>; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 20:03:29 -0600 (CST)
Received: from by (NTList 3.02.10) id
fa005205; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 18:02:27 -0800
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.8.5/(97/02/12 3.22))
	id UAA12757; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 20:59:32 -0500 (EST)
	[1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network]
Errors-To: <ballense(--nospam--at)>
Received: from BAllen ( [])
	by (8.8.5)
	id UAA12089; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 20:59:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <331A303C.3801(--nospam--at)>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 17:58:21 -0800
From: Bill Allen <ballense(--nospam--at)>
Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: building code minimums for wood frame
References: <970301172230_-2109101063(--nospam--at)>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Error-To: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
X-Loop: seaoc(--nospam--at)
X-Info: [SEAOC]
Owner: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
X-POP3-Rcpt: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
X-Sender: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
Precedence: list
X-ListMember: rlewis(--nospam--at) [seaoc(--nospam--at)]


Richard Lewis, P.E.
Missionary TECH Team

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