Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough![Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
- Subject: RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough!
- From: "Dennis S. Wish" <wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:09:58 -0700
I think Bill Allen finally understands my frustration and concern. There are members of SEA who support Conventional Framing. Not to criticize, but a member once sent me a note to support SEAOC's work on this section of the code and actually told me that the '94 and '97 UBC's were much more restrictive than prior versions. The problem is that these members who have responded do not design single family residence and don't run into the same greed mongers that we do who use the code to line their pockets and who are aware of all of the loopholes. Bill mentioned that the Architect was hired to perform structural engineering. I think the designer was duped. The Architect appears to have provided a service that the designer could have done on her own as long as the size and shape of the structure complied with Conventional provisions. Is it structural engineering to regurgitate the Conventional Framing section of the code and put your stamp upon it. Developers profit, Architect gets his fee and possibly a reuse fee for each house and he never had to run one number. Bill hit it on the nose - "Ignorance is Bliss". Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Bill Allen, S.E. [mailto:bill(--nospam--at)allendesigns.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 7:01 AM To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Subject: RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough! To clarify a couple of issues: This person is an architect but has been hired by my friend to do the structural engineering only. There is a one line paragraph in the B&P code which addresses architects doing structural engineering. I forget the paragraph number, but if you insist that I look it up, I will. However, I believe you are correct in that the way this paragraph is worded, it is something like "architects are exempt from these provisions..." or something to that effect. This is the one paragraph which I have consistently stated that should be removed. My friend has prepared about thirty sheets in her drawing package to cover the non-engineering issues of the project. The structural "package" consists of ONE sheet. If this "standard of care" is acceptable and prevalent in certain areas, no wonder we structural engineers are considered too expensive and guilty of "over engineering". Whether it is BORPELS, BAE or the state legislature, someone somewhere has allowed a hole in the provisions regulating structural design and this hole should be closed by someone. If the true culprit is the Conventional Framing Provisions then there is something wrong with these provisions. A prescriptive standard should be more restrictive than a detailed engineered design. Look at the Energy Code. At least when I was involved with it, there were actually three ways to check for energy compliance. A prescriptive method was available whereby one would follow a list of features (max. glazing, min. insulation, etc.). This method was the easiest (in terms of time) to apply but the most restrictive. The second method was the "point system" whereby one could do tradeoffs. This required a little more time, but no computer runs were required. The third and most comprehensive method was the computer budget method (CALPAS or MICROPAS) where one would model the energy envelope and determine the annual energy usage and compare it vs. a standard. If the true culprit is the Convention Framing Provisions, what we have here is a case of a simplified method (which costs less in terms of man hours) being the least restrictive. This application is a true gift for the untrained designer (and building official) who unknowingly subscribes to the concept of "ignorance is bliss". -----Original Message----- From: Charles Greenlaw [mailto:cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)speedlink.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 9:33 PM To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Subject: RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough! At 05:35 PM 5/20/98 -0500, you wrote: >IS this a situation that needs "tightened regulations?" Or is it a case where the existing regulations are being flouted? > >Check with BORPELS and see if you can get this person cited. > >-----Original Message----- What will it take to get BORPELS to tighten the >regulations on who can do structural engineering (especially in seismic zone >4)? ______________________ "This person" is reportedly an architect. The work done is clearly included within the practice of architecture, which is exempt from regulation by the PE Board (BORPELS), but is regulated by the Board of Architectural Examiners (BAE). If this architect's work is questionable, BAE would be the place to notify. BORPELS often forgets, but it is constrained to enforce only what the legislature has authorized it to enforce. Same for BAE. The legislature authorizes architects and civil engineers to do structural engineering for residential woodframe projects (among other kinds) regardless of seismic zone. For non-exempt portions of otherwise exempt woodframe residences, the legislature expressly requires the design to be prepared by an architect or civil engineer. If this policy appears ill-advised, perhaps you have an issue to take up with the legislature. But not BORPELS. Charles O. Greenlaw, SE Sacramento CA
- RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough!
- From: Bill Allen, S.E.
- RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough!
- Prev by Subject: RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough!
- Next by Subject: RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough!
- Previous by thread: RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough!
- Next by thread: Re: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough!