Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I remember from living in Missouri the expression

plain dumb luck.

4000 afghans luck ran out last year in non ductile structures.

25,000 luck ran out in Spitak,

some huge number ran out in China in 1976.

sooner or later the luck of the Eastern US will run out.  I was at a
conference once where a Doctor was talking about deaths after an earthquake.
They had heaps.  He said he dinna mind the dead people cause the only issue
is burying them,  it was the huge number of injuries that are a problem.

The other thing is it is generally things attached to buildings that cause
most deaths,  like in a recent Japanese earthquake I read about where a
number of deaths were due to falling fences made of masonry.  In newcastel
people were killed by falling awnings.  How many undesigned fences and
awnings are their in ENA.

any way thats my $0.03 Australian cents worth.



John Nichols


  







At 15:17 21/05/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Could Be^2
>
>Regards,
>Bill Allen
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger Turk [mailto:73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 2:16 PM
>To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
>Subject: Re: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough
>
>
>Could it be that houses built under the conventional framing provisions have
>not experienced widespread failures because they have never been subjected
>to
>the loads for which they should have been designed?
>
>Could it be that engineer designed houses are more conservative than houses
>built under the conventional framing provisions because they are designed
>for code prescribed loads?
>
>A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
>Tucson, Arizona
>
>Mike Brown wrote:
>
>. > On the other side of the coin, if there are no more failures due to
>. > conventional construction as compared to structures that have been
>. > engineered, then maybe we are being too conservative.  But, I highly
>doubt
>. > that this is the case.
>. >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>