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: Sat, 23 May 1998 23:04:47 -0700
Chris, not to sound ignorant, but do Architects often cross the line when it comes to "highway or rail bridges or machinery supports or ag structures like bins"? Do land civils (civil-civil) need to be an SE to design these types of structures or is the concession that the basic Civil license provides enough competency for "highway or rail bridges or machinery supports or ag structures like bins"? I don't mean this argumentativly, but I think the issue is that those practicing structural engineering in the private sector are infiltrated by unqualified professionals who, by the current licensing acts are allowed to design structures. If you find that the same problem exists for "public work" type projects, then some sort of specific engineering classification needs to be assigned to distinguish those who can prove competency in these area's from those that can't. It seems ludicrus that those of us who use are registration to practice area's that we are competent need to further prove our skills simply to weed out the bad seeds. It isn't fair to use to prove what we already know. HOWEVER, I would be willing to make the sacrifice if it meant that we can finally bar those who cross the line and prevent them from endangering the public. I think that Bill's one test idea is the best solution to the problem that I have heard to date. If anyone has something better to offer, please do. I also agree with Bill that the biggest enemy we have is not the Architect or unqualified engineer, but our own apathy. Personally, I have written articles, letters (many) to SEAOSC and tried to bring the attention to this problem into focus on our list. I have never received a response from any SEAOSC commitee member working on this section of the code, or my letters were never forwarded to the proper people. I once received a response from an ICBO employee who simply pointed me to comments in the ICBO magazine that justifies their decision to publish the Conventional Framing Section of the code. My biggest problem is that I believe the majority of those who helped develop this section of the code do not practice single family wood framed construction and have no idea how their prescriptive method is being bastardized at the expense of the home-buyer. IF ANY DECISION OR POLICY MAKER (COMMITTEE MEMBER) WHO IS WORKING ON THIS SECTION OF THE IBC IS READING THIS OR ON OUR LIST, I URGE YOU TO TAKE THIS THREAD TO YOUR COMMITTEE AND DISCUSS OUR CONCERN AND REPORT BACK TO US WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT AND WHY. ALLOW US THE OPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE WITH YOU VIA OUR MEDIUM (THE LISTSERVICE) SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE THE OPINIONS OF PRACTICING ENGINEERS WHO ARE INTERNATIONAL AND NOT SPECIFICALLY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. I am also working on my web site and have received pictures from Rick Raneous which I will scan and place on the website. I have many pictures of my own that clearly shows the effects of conventional construction and the diferences compared to properly engineered products. Personally, I don't know what more I can do without the active support of each one of you on this list that has an opinion on the subject. YOU NEED NOT AGREE WITH ME OR ANY ADVOCATE AGAINST CONVENTIONAL FRAMING. FRANK LEWS COMMENTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH OURS SO THAT BOTH SIDES OF THE DISCUSSION CAN BE REVIEWED. At the very least, I think that Franks comments clearly show where the problem in code creation lies. It has been historic practice to base codes upon statistical analysis for loss of life. However, I believe that the majority no longer agree with this methodology. This may be the root that we need to attack to instill change, but we won't be able to do it without some activity or support from those committees that work on this section of the code. James Lai is on this list and President Elect of SEAOSC (sorry if I am being politically incorrect). James, please take the lead and pass this thread on to those who can put it to the best use. If not James, than Rick Raneous, or Rawn Nelson or Bill Warren or any of the other members who reside on SEAOSC committees are are active in the organizations. You are the members who can direct these comments to the appropriate people in our behalf. I urge each of you to open the table of discussion. Create the link with us and let us become a part of the decision process. Respectfully Dennis Wish PE -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Wright [mailto:chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com] Sent: Saturday, May 23, 1998 9:36 AM To: SEAOC Newsletter Subject: RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough! >c.. Require civil-civils who wish to do structural engineering pass a >one problem, long hand test which will clearly demonstrate that the person >knows how to design and detail a lateral load path (see my sample problem >previously submitted). The civil engineers who currently practice structural >engineering full time will have no problem whatsoever with this exam. This >exam would be proctored and graded by SEs. And and will this one problem test help grade those who do highway or rail bridges or machinery supports or ag structures like bins? A single problem test is way too narrow. Residential construction is important but homes aren't the only structures and seismic/wind isn't the only hazard. Nor is any one or two day test a proper classifier of competence. Engineering registration testing should be far more concerned with first principles. My guess is that a thoughtfully planned continuing education requirement will go a helluva lot further toward improving competence than a one problem make-or-break exam. Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant from chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen. ___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864) http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw
- RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough!
- From: Christopher Wright
- 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!