Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Re: Disaster dilemma[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: Re: Re: Disaster dilemma
- From: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org (Richard Lewis)
- Date: 23 Jan 1998 15:25:54 GMT
It seems obvious to me that if it takes an engineer to design the lateral force resisting elements in a building then it should be an engineer who evaluates the safety of the system after the seismic event. If someone could not design it to begin with then how can they evaluate if it is still functional? Let's reverse the situation. Lets say an office building was having a terrible time with conflicting traffic at the buildings entrance due to a poor floor plan layout. Would the owner call in the structural engineer or the mechanical engineer to solve the traffic problem? If he did then he would probably get a separate entrance designed for every building function to solve the problem! After all, that is the most logical solution. An architect is trained to layout a functional plan to solve the problem. They are not trained to solve mechanical or structural DESIGN problems. (I know they do more than floor plans so please don't flame me, but they do not do the specific design of the other professions). If an architect wants to evaluate a structure after a seismic event then they should be competent in the design of a lateral force system ahead of time. Just my $0.02 from a non-seismic (well at least EXTremely low) zone of Texas. __________________________________________________ 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: Re: Disaster dilemma
- Next by Subject: RE: Disaster dilemma
- Previous by thread: Re: Disaster dilemma
- Next by thread: RE: Disaster dilemma