Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Disaster dilemma

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill, I really wasn't trying to point fingers, just make a statement of
fact. There are SE's out there who obtained the designation by education
alone (PHD's etc) or by working on public works projects and who have little
or no experience in the private sector. I don't mean to denigate their
abilities, but from my experience, they have a tremendous theoretical
knowledge, but little practical experience to create an ecconomical solution
to a field problem.
I would think that there is virtually no engineer in our community willing
to devote the time to teach his trade to a non-engineer that would use it to
take work away. This seems appropriate, but places our profession between a
rock and a hard place by ignoring the public trust for safety of structures.
If we have the knowledge that such and such an architect is not qualified to
design structure, notice significant problems as we pass by the construction
project and don't bring them to the attention of the building official - we
must share the blame for any consequences. However, if we spend the time to
educate and help architects (and Civil-Civil's) to learn our trade, we
increase competition (especially part-timers who moonlight) and ultimately
force our fees down (and thus reducing the quality of our services).
Indeed, this is a mess from either prespective. The one most reasonable
solution is for those professionals (Borpels, AIA etc) who have placed us in
this uncomprimising position, to make it right. Either provide regulations
for continuing education requirments before Architects are allowed to submit
(the only partially adequate way I know is by making them pass the CE exam)
or stop their interaction.
Isn't this what Borpels is trying to do by their proposed new guidelines to
clearly define Civil-Civils from Civil-Structural????  And, BTW, I don't
feel that Borpels and those that support the prior rhetoric on this subject,
have listened enough to the threads on this site - they seem to have missed
the problems.
Finally, what makes you think that this problem is isolated to California?

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen,S.E. <BAllenSE(--nospam--at)pacbell.net>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
Date: Friday, January 23, 1998 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: Disaster dilemma


>Did you have anyone in mind, Dennis :o)?
>
>Since I agree that nothing will be done to restrict architects and
civil-civils
>from practicing structural engineering in the state of California, this
issue
>should turn to education. To tie this in with another (also worn out)
thread,
>when the topic on continuing eduction for professional development comes up
>again, I believe the emphasis should be on those who do not practice
structural
>engineering on a daily basis such as architects and civil civils.
>
>Regards,
>Bill Allen
>
>wish wrote:
>
>> What about the SE who was a great test taker, but a terrible engineer -
who
>> is protecting the public's intrest now?
>> Dennis Wish PE
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Serroels, Chris/SAC <CSerroel(--nospam--at)CH2M.com>
>> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
>> Date: Thursday, January 22, 1998 11:55 AM
>> Subject: RE: Disaster dilemma
>>
>> >I should of known better than to touch the architect vs. engineer
>> >debate.  I would only like to see every available and qualified
>> >resource utilized after an eq.  I'm not trying to suggest that
>> >anyone who isn't truly qualified perform these evaluations.
>> >I don't know if architects are qualified. I have never worked
>> >with an architect.
>> >
>> >If you don't think that architects are qualified then fine, you have
>> >answered my question.  Why stop there?  I know a whole
>> >lot of registered civils who don't belong out on these inspections.
>> >They might be able to tell us which way the water is going to
>> >flow out of a broken pipe network though.
>> >
>> >Let's just limit these inspections to SE's.  That way won't have
>> >to worry about unqualified people performing these inspections.
>> >That way we can completely ensure the safety of our residents,
>> >right?
>> >
>> >Chris Serroels, CE
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Bill Allen,S.E. [SMTP:BAllenSE(--nospam--at)pacbell.net]
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 4:42 PM
>> >> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
>> >> Subject: Re: Disaster dilemma
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Serroels, Chris/SAC wrote:
>> >> How many architects have assisted in post-eq inspections
>> >> in the past? If they are left out of the equation, are there
>> >> enough building officials, civil engineers, and structural
>> >> engineers to get the first pass inspections done in a
>> >> timely manner.
>> >> Fine, then let's use contractors and real estate agents as well.
>> >>
>> >> Do we really feel that they are not competent to make
>> >> the assessments. If they receive the rapid evaluation
>> >> training (ATC20) they should be able to make
>> >> appropriate assessments.
>> >> I dunno. I've been working with architects for eleven years now.While
>> >> I do feel they are expert in a lot of areas, none have demonstrated
>> >> to me that they had any level of structural expertise.
>> >> To be fair to the architects,
>> >> we send a lot of young engineers out on these inspections
>> >> (present company included).
>> >> If you weren't qualified, you shouldn't have accepted the assignment
>> >> either.
>> >> Keep in mind that, when the Northridge E/Q occurred, everyone in So
>> >> Cal
>> >> was light on work (to put it mildly). Everybody and their brother
>> >> jumped on
>> >> the E/Q inspection bandwagon.
>> >> When I went out on Northridge
>> >> it was a very intimidating experience. I was a pretty young
>> >> engineer and my partner was in the same boat. What
>> >> experience we did have was in bridge design. I feel that
>> >> we made prudent decisions, but having an more experienced
>> >> engineer on the team would of been extremely beneficial.
>> >> Let's not sell displaced homeowners short by making
>> >> them wait longer than they need to reoccupy their homes
>> >> just because we have a grudge with architects.
>> >> Nor should we give them a false sense of security that an inspection
>> >> hasbeen done by a competent person when in fact this may not be true.
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Bill Allen
>> >>
>> >> As a side note, I wonder if it would be possible to pair up
>> >> inspection teams so that if there is an inexperienced engineer
>> >> or architect that they go out with an experienced civil or
>> >> structural
>> >> engineer. I know that after an eq there is a fair amount of
>> >> disarray no matter how good the planning, so logistically this
>> >> may be hard to implement. Nevertheless, it may be something
>> >> to consider.
>> >> Chris
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Bill Allen,S.E. [SMTP:BAllenSE(--nospam--at)pacbell.net]
>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 1:46 PM
>> >> > To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
>> >> > Subject: Re: Disaster dilemma
>> >> >
>> >> > Hey! It's our own damn fault by letting ICBO and BORPELS get
>> >> away with
>> >> > giving
>> >> > the architect the same level of competency in structural
>> >> engineering.
>> >> > If you
>> >> > don't like the way things are - complain to them!!
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > Bill Allen
>> >> >
>> >> > Tom Chiu wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > What! Architects to inspect damaged buildings, you must be
>> >> kidding.
>> >> > > No wonder, the green tags were changed to red tags, after
>> >> the
>> >> > engineers
>> >> > > went inside the buildings. You see, the architects were too
>> >> busy
>> >> > > looking at the exterior of the buildings, checking out
>> >> curtain
>> >> > walls,
>> >> > > carpeting etc.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Tom Chiu, SE
>> >> > > Thomas Engineering
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > >-----Original Message-----
>> >> > > > >From: Richard_Ranous/OES(--nospam--at)oes.ca.gov
>> >> > [SMTP:Richard_Ranous/OES(--nospam--at)oes.ca.gov]
>> >> > > > >Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 9:49 AM
>> >> > > > >To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
>> >> > > > >Subject: Re: Disaster dilema
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >We should be able to handle most any request for
>> >> assistance in
>> >> > safety
>> >> > > > >assessment. We have close to 6,000 individuals
>> >> registered
>> >> > between SEAOC,
>> >> > > > >AIA, ACIA, ASCE, and CALBO. For Northridge we used 600
>> >> plus
>> >> > around 200
>> >> > > > >from the Army Corps of Engineers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of
>> >> California (SEAOC) email server. To * subscribe (no fee) to the list,
>> >> send email to * admin(--nospam--at)seaoc.org and in the body of the message type *
>> >> "join seaoc" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email * to
>> >> admin(--nospam--at)seaoc.org and in the body of the message * type "leave seaoc"
>> >> (no quotes). For questions, send * email to seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org.
>> >> Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be
>> >> reposted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site
>> >> ****** ********
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>


>> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
>> *   Association of California (SEAOC) email server. To
>> *   subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to
>> *   admin(--nospam--at)seaoc.org and in the body of the message type
>> *   "join seaoc" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email
>> *   to admin(--nospam--at)seaoc.org and in the body of the message
>> *   type "leave seaoc" (no quotes). For questions, send
>> *   email to seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org. Remember, any email you
>> *   send to the list is public domain and may be reposted
>> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
>> *   site at: http://www.seaoc.org
>
>
>
>
>
>