........................marketing them as equivalent complying
It is true that
conventionally framed buildings won't "calculate". So
what. It is how they perform that counts. Conventional
construction has a long history of
.................................identify any areas where
the answer is yes, then that is where the code need to be
changed. Anything else is regulation for regulation
Remember, we can
always add to the code to make construction more expensive but only at
significant social costs.
Past Chair, Conventional Construction Task
I too pay cognizance to the "where are the bodies ... etc"
school of thought, however, with the very real increase in pressure,
and liability, to be an "expert" in the any given
structural situation, I am more and more returning to my previously
discarded reasoning that, within reasonable accuracy, calculation
must concur with "conventional",
"gut-feel", "empirical", "experience", ...
etc. IMO it is no longer enough to say that "this is the way
it's been since Adam was a cowboy and if it works don't mess with it
........ yada yada". IMHO, as engineers, we should/must be
able to align calculation with empirical. Obviously the simpler a
"unified" theory is the better. Theories of relativity,
gravitation etc are following these lines.
Is this not the basis of "scientific
Recently it was recognized that conventional trusses worked fine with
allowable stress methods while it seemed that Limit States Design
indicated otherwise. The discrepancy lies in the available
fixities of the plate joints. "Calculation" aligned with
"experience". Although a sample of 1 QED.
I am overjoyed that Dennis has initiated this (to me) very important
discussion and that I am able to "listen in". I wish
that Canadian engineers will follow suit.
Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, MCSCE,
Victoria, BC, Canada