Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Disaster Dilemma

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
 

Rawn Nelson wrote:

It's interesting how a discussion about suggestions on how to assist the
disaster displaced has lead to so many tangential responses.  The rapid
response system that OES volunteers provide is not intended to provide a
full structural evaluation for any of the structures under review.  One of
the major intents is to try and identify immediate safety hazards.  Yellow
or red tags only indicate the potential for these hazards and that a
further review is required by those, hopefully, with more experience or
qualifications in evaluating the status of the structure.  With proper
training, some of which is in place as we speak, professionals with varying
degrees of expertise in structures can and have been an asset to the rapid
response program.
This "expertise" should include the ability to determine the lateral force resisting system. This way, a cracked brick/block wall can be evaluated to determine if the existing lateral force resisting system is intact.
 

Discussions on this invaluable service do not seem to be the proper place
to thrash any particular professions ability to do the more complex
evaluations! In the history of registration in California architects
actually had the right to do structural engineering before there was a
structural engineering title. "Practice Restrictions" are the purview of
the legislature and BORPELS. It is not something which involves ICBO.

This "history lesson" is a reference to a time when codes were simpler and there weren't as many attorneys! As far as ICBO's culpability in the extension of the architect's role in structural engineering, your attention is invited to UBC section 1702 which clearly states that an architect is capable of performing structural observation.
 

On some of the other issues discussed the following updates might be of
interest:
        1. The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) has
issued a unanimous position that "continuing education" should be required
for structural engineers.

As long as architects and civil-civils are allowed to do structural engineering I will remain opposed to mandated continuing education. I would be better off practicing under my civil license and tossing my SE.

        2. Both the NCSEA and the Structural Engineers Institute (SEI), of ASCE,
are working together with other professional organizations to forward this
opinion.
        3. The recognition of "structural engineers" in the licensing process
should be common to all states. This issue is also on the collective
strategic plans of the above mentioned coalitions.
        4. The quality of undergraduate and post graduate education for structural
engineers is also receiving a great deal of attention.

 Hopefully, through this forum or others the status of these efforts will
be displayed for review and comments. As was alluded to in one or more of
the responses on this thread "Structural Engineering " is your chosen
profession, if you want to improve any related aspect GET INVOLVED.

I'm sorry you do not feel that participating in these types of discussions on this listserv does not constitute "participation".

Regards,
Bill Allen