Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Fwd: Re: Min. Code Design[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: wai(--nospam--at)euken.com
- Subject: Fwd: Re: Min. Code Design
- From: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org (Richard Lewis)
- Date: 07 Aug 1997 12:35:07 GMT
---------- > From: dennismc(--nospam--at)dennismc.com > To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org > Subject: Re: Min. Code Design > Date: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 9:38 AM > > The policy I adopted several years ago is to do what I think is right. I > pay little attention to minimum standards indicated by the code. Since they > don't figure anyway, I always calc things out and that is what goes on the > plans. If the client doesn't like it, let them go somewhere else. I'm just > doing my job and providing competent engineering judgement. Ultimately, this should be the goal of every engineer. Get as much data (research, empirical, etc.) as possible and then make a judgement. > If you aren't accused of "overengineering", you are not doing your job. The > contractors who make these statements know little to nothing about design or > codes. They just know it's different than what someone else let them get > away with. I tend to try and educate people. Once they understand why and > how, they are usually less critical. Those who are concerned in quality > appreciate it, those only interested in the bottom line usually understand > but still whine about it. As long as there are bottom feeders out there, > there will always be someone else that will do it cheaper and to lesser > standards. We need to stick together to raise the minimum standard of quality. It's been my experience that the only people who use the term "over engineering" are those who are not engineers nor have any technical background in engineering. The contractors' experiences are what he sees on a job. If, on all the jobs a particular contractor works on, there are only HD2As, as soon as he sees a set of plans with HD5As on them, he cries "over engineered". Keep in mind also that the ones who are so-called concerned about quality also do not have an engineering background, so they might have a tendency to replace all of the HD2As on a job you specified with HD5As. You might not think there is anything wrong with this, but the construction cost goes up without benefit. If asked, you probably would have recommended that they spend the extra money on diapragm blocking, glue-nailing, special inspection or, heaven forbid, structural observation. Hopefully, the ones interested in quality design will select a structural engineer who shares the same interest and put their faith in his/her design. I recommend that, before you suggest that we stick together to raise the quality of the practice, we first must get together on what areas of the practice needs raising first. I certainly agree that no one should be intimidated by the term "over engineering". It is a term used by mostly non-techical people intended to put the design engineer on the defense so that the contractor can do what he learned when he started framing at 18. > The term "overengineering" is a contradiction. Any neanderthal can stand > on a log between 2 rocks and say it works. It takes an engineer to > determine the minimum size that will work. Engineering means to economize, > so if you are "overengineering" you are being more economical? Tell that to > the contractor and see if you confuse him. I suppose that maybe the only legitimate application of the term "over-engineering" would be in the case where a 4x10 calcs out and a 4x12 is specified. But, then again, only someone with an engineering background, I believe, has the capability to evaluate the basis of the superimposed loads, perform an analysis, select a lumber species and grade and those "blankety-blank" modification factors that are different for every section, evaluate deflection criteria as well as "fit" criteria. For example, I do not think it is good engineering once the engineer has established the design loads, etc. to multiply all moments, shears, etc. by say 1.25 and then select a section based on the modified forces purely for the "just in case" scenario. All loads and materials already have a factor of safety built into them. I have felt for a long time (particularly with seismic design) that we probably do not have to increase design loads that much to ensure public safety. If, after the project was designed, some methodology (say structural observation or special inspection) was utilized to ensure all hold downs were in and properly secured, all drag straps were installed and attached to the proper members, etc. I think this is the area where "quality in engineering" would be most significant. Oh, yeah, and to prohibit Architects and junior CEs from signing structural plans (I almost left that part out). Regards, Bill Allen --- Internet Message Header Follows --- Received: from server1.seaoc.org (bqe.com [184.108.40.206]) by host1.texramp.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA28492 for <rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 15:21:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from darius.concentric.net by server1.seaoc.org (NTList 3.02.13) id ya019394; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 13:15:50 -0700 Received: from newman.concentric.net (newman.concentric.net [220.127.116.11]) by darius.concentric.net (8.8.5/(97/04/01 3.26)) id QAA06274; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:13:21 -0400 (EDT) [1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network] Errors-To: <ballense(--nospam--at)concentric.net> Received: from ALLENDESIGNS (61056d0019la.concentric.net [18.104.22.168]) by newman.concentric.net (8.8.5) id QAA29474; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199704222013.QAA29474(--nospam--at)newman.concentric.net> From: "Bill Allen, S.E." <ballense(--nospam--at)concentric.net> To: <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org> Subject: Re: Min. Code Design Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 13:03:32 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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.
- Prev by Subject: Fwd: Re: Min. Code Design
- Next by Subject: Fwd: Min. Code Design
- Previous by thread: Fwd: Re: Min. Code Design
- Next by thread: Fwd: Min. Code Design