Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: What a disaster![Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: Re: What a disaster!
- From: "Bill Allen,S.E." <BAllenSE(--nospam--at)pacbell.net>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:15:46 -0800
I don't believe it. Mark your calender. I actually agree with everything Dennis Wish has said in this post regarding CE vs. SE vs architect. I guess if we can put a man on the moon, anything is possible!! Good Post! Regards, Bill Allen wish wrote: > Rick, > You are ignoring the other 50% of the SEAOC membership - CE's who practice > Structural Engineering. Our complaints with Architects extend to Civils > that have no experience in Structures who we affectionatly refer to as > Civil-Civils. The rest of us activly practicing Structural Engineering have > been refered to as Civil-Structurals. > I recommend that you go back over the archives on the SEAOC web site for the > last three years and spend the time to review our "threads" on the issue of > CE verses SE and Architects Vs. Engineers and more. We have attempted to > transfer this information to BORPEL's without luck and to SEAOC without them > hearing us. If I am correct, you are a past president of SEAOSC (within the > last three to five years). If this is the case, why were our discussions not > discussed over board meetings to address the problems that exist within our > own community as well as between professions? > The fact remains that many of us who are CE's are registered with OES (I was > prior to Northridge but not activated for some reason). I would venture to > say that you may be lumping all CE-Structurals into one catagory. If so, you > miss the essence of this discussion. > The main reason why we have debated this issue is that many incompetent > engineers and architects responded to the needs of the public after > Northridge (and I venture to guess Loma Prieta and others). This included > SE's who worked for large companies that did very little if anything with > residential wood frameing. These engineers lacked the understanding of wood > and had difficulty assessing a structures extent of damage by not having > developed a feel for the materials. (Possibly these are the SE's who felt > cheated that their abilities were not used). For those of you who are > offended by my comments, please don't be, I have tutored a few SE's in wood > design. There is no shame here to identify your weakness. For the same > token, I would not feel comfortable accessing problems with steel and > concrete framed buildings. > More to the point: A financial market was created that opened the door to > our "bottom feeders" and unscrupulus non-structural professionals to step > over their bounds of experience simply because their license allows them to > do so. This may have created a greater potential for harm to the public or > may have attacked their pocketbooks by over-designers. Mind you, proper > engineering skills and the competent understanding of engineering basics are > what is in question, not whether a repair or retrofit design is over or > under designed when the choice is subjectivly based upon the EOR's > judgement. The professionals I am attacking are those who spend their time > doing geotechnical, surveying, grading plans etc, but who never design > buildings or foundations. These professionals (and I use the term lightly) > swarmed over the private sector and insurance adjusters looking for > profitable work. We can debate profit motivation, but when it comes to > charging for services and receiving a report or retro design that is so far > offbase it eithers breaks the homeowner or the insurance company is not > professional. Those of us with structural engineering abilities are more > than simple purveyors of calculations. We need to understand the ecconomics > of design and be creative in our work. This is not the case for the bottom > feeder who goes out to rape the tree of it's fruit. > > If you see us attacking our own profession, please understand that although > the majority of those on this list who are SE's would love for me to join > the fraternaty, they are still willing to accept my understanding of > structural engineering from my experience with SEA and this list. What about > all the others whose abilities are not known by the community, who don't > participate in SEA, CELSOC or any of the other professional organizations > that help the public differentiate between a CE(land) and a CE(structural)? > Who protects the public when the title is too general (Civil Engineer). The > latest changes suggested by Borpels simply help the profession police > themselves, but do nothing to alert and educate the public of the > differences and why a CE is not a CE is not an SE is not an Architect and so > forth and so on. Structurally speaking, there is a discontinuity occuring in > our own profession. > > Rick, the problem is that Architects (and non-structurals) should not be > used for judgement calls simply because some SE refuses to evaluate > residential or complains about not be used to the best of his ability. The > fact is that residential structural design falls under the SE's title as > part of his knowledge more so that an Architect. Ego and Superiority have no > place in emergency response when your goal is to help the public whether > they be a single family or a building full of employees. > > I understand your frustration with the problem. Possibly you can understand > ours. You have more power within SEA than the combined lot of us and can > open many eyes to our collective needs. Again, I highly recommend that you > review past threads to come up to speed with the concensus of Listservice > members. When you do, I would be honored to have you raise the issues and > offer some constructive means to getting the needs of the community through > the thick skulls of board members (Borpels and SEA). > > Respectfully > Dennis Wish PE > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard_Ranous/OES(--nospam--at)oes.ca.gov <Richard_Ranous/OES(--nospam--at)oes.ca.gov> > To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org> > Date: Friday, January 23, 1998 11:55 AM > Subject: What a disaster! > > > > >I orginally posed a very possible scenario to something that WILL happen in > >California. I got some very good suggestions on an approach to solving the > >problem and will be pursuing those suggestions. Suddenly, the discussions > >have moved to the value of architects and some of you have taken quite a > >firm stand. > > > >I guess you have given me the opportunity to get on my soap box and relay > >the problems I have had with structural engineers (and I have been one for > >a good number of years). I came to OES after 16 years of structural > >engineering with various consultants including two offices of my own. My > >major responsiblility was and is to organize the "design community" to be > >able to assist local government when disaster strikes and they need safety > >evaluations of buildings. > > > >Ever since Loma Prieta I have been conducting after action meetings with > >the responding personnel to hear from them what worked and what did not. > >Without exception the responding structural engineers have complained that > >they were used improperly by the requesting cities. Their complaints were > >centered on evaluating the safety of houses, mobile homes, and minor > >structurces. This was a waste of their expertiese. There request was that > >OES had to do something to make sure that they were used "properly." > > > >In 1991 we opened discuscions with AIA about joining our safety assessment > >program. As a part of those discussions we looked at areas where they > >could most effectively be used. The architects were happy to do > >evaluations of houses and apartments. They were willing to do whatever was > >asked of them. They simply wanted to be involved and help. > > > >As a State representative I have no control over how individuals are > >assigned to perform evaluations. Until you have been in a building > >officials shoes in organizing and performing a safety assessment response > >you can not talk about how right or wrong their actions where. > > > >Now, some of you are telling us that architects have no business being > >involved in safety evaluations at all. Okay, answer this question for me: > > > >If SEs don't want to do homes, mobile homes, and small structures; and they > >do not want architects to be involved in safety evaluations how do I get > >the resources necessary to get people back into their homes and businesses > >in a timely fashion? Let's look at Northridge: 113000 structures were > >evaluated! 86% of those structures were residential? Under this > >discussion who should have evaluated them? > > > > > > > > > > >
- Re: What a disaster!
- From: wish
- Re: What a disaster!
- Prev by Subject: Re: What a disaster!
- Next by Subject: Re: What a disaster!
- Previous by thread: Re: What a disaster!
- Next by thread: Re: What a disaster!