Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Architects and Human Occupancy

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Because there are a lot of "yahoos" out there who can legally stamp and sign structural drawings in seismic zone 4. Most of them (except for the folks participating on this list serve) probably don't know when to multiply design forces by 3Rw/8 or when not to include the 1/3 increase in seismic design.

I believe the public would be better served if those preparing structural designs in seismic zone 4 had to succumb to the scrutiny of such an exam. We would too since we wouldn't have to compete with these "yahoos". On the other hand, the code could be made even more stringent and put the onus on the building official!!

Regards,
Bill Allen

-----Original Message-----
From:	Powers, Tony [SMTP:tpowers(--nospam--at)hdrinc.com]
Sent:	Monday, October 06, 1997 11:47 AM
To:	seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
Subject:	RE: Architects and Human Occupancy



> ----------
> From: 	Bill Allen
> Sent: 	Monday, October 06, 1997 10:24 AM
> To: 	'seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org'
> Subject: 	RE: Architects and Human Occupancy
> 
> 
> If you are correct, then we would have to have traffic engineers,
> facility engineers, etc. which are are disciplines of civil
> engineering. It just so happens in California, there are special
> designations for two categories of civil engineers that have title
> authority. They are structural engineers and geotechnical engineers.
> For those not holding authority to use these two titles, all other
> civil engineers are just that - civil engineers.
> 
I'm not suggesting a plethora of new specialty titles.  I'm suggesting
that such a broad title as "Structural Engineer"  should not exclude a
majority of the field of structural engineering as it currently does. If
there's only going to be two limited specialty titles, then title them
appropriately.   

> I do agree that one should promote themselves in their area of
> specialty and certainly structural engineering has several of them.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Allen
> 
Exactly!  Since, as you say, structural engineering has several
specialties, then why reserve the title and the testing and experience
requirements for only a small group of them which are not necessarilly
any more technically challenging than other specialties not requiring
the title?  

Tony Powers


<<application/ms-tnef>>