Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: CalTrans Screw Up/ engineering judgement

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 97-11-25 18:47:13 EST, you write:

<< In your example, if the engineer specified #5s @ 16" when #4s @ 16" are
 adequate, then shame on the engineer especially when the project is being
 paid for with public funds. In this case, the engineer should be held
 accountable. >>

     I would question the use of the word "adequate". In my opinion, the
uniform building code ( for example )  may be considered adequate by some but
i consider it as an absolute minimum piece of junk that is permitted to be
     Take the example of plywood shear wall height to width ratios. If you
are using 3.5 :1 as allowed by the '94 code , it is adequate. The '97 code
requires 2:1 which my experience reviewing over 1000 Northridge E.Q. damaged
houses makes me feel is more appropriate. Therefore when an engineer uses
 experience / Judgement  and decides to use 2:1 ratio now , before the '97
code is adopted , he may be judged by some to be engineering above "adequate"
and should be "held accountable ". Where is engineering judgement?
      Recently on a hillside ( cliffside ) home i had a contractor say i had
engineered the  house  " 10,000 " times above code... I had followed L.A.
city hillside guidelines in an area where UBC was " adequate "  ( L.A.
guidelines not required ). 
     If i am to be held "accountable "  for anything above "adequate " ( in
addition to below adequate ) i wonder where we are going?

      Tom Harris, SE
      Thousand Oaks, CA

     Tom Harris, SE
     Thousand Oaks, CA