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

RE: MaxBeam, MaxQuake, MaxWind

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
-----Original Message-----
From:	Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent:	Monday, May 17, 1999 1:20 PM
To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject:	Re: MaxBeam, MaxQuake, MaxWind

>From the Office
of Dennis S. Wish, PE
Editor - SEAINT Online

In a message dated 5/15/99 7:07:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
scaldwell(--nospam--at)halff.com writes:
<< From the literature that was provided, it is pretty clear that these
programs are marketed primarily to non-engineers.  In fact, the brochures
state:  "Easy to use structural software for architects, builders, drafters,
engineers, and building departments."  Perhaps this software, in addition to
prescriptive building code requirements, explains why some architects feel
competent in designing wood frame structures (thereby causing premature
aging for Dennis Wish and others). >>
.... The fact that it was marketed to Architects, builders and designers
(draftspersons) was very disturbing. It reflects many of the fears of those
on this list that believe a full understanding of structures is a mandatory
prerequesite to using any engineering program.
Dennis - That would also eliminate a lot of engineers but not every
architect.
I have since discussed this with a few software vendors - all of whom sell
structural software to architects. I understand the developers business
decision, but also am comfortable that these softwares are being written
under the supervision of engineers who understand the methodology they are
marketing.
I do, however, have a bias toward any software that places powerful tools in
unskilled hands. This happens to be one that I suspect is used predominately
by non-engineers. Is this bad - in my opinion yes. I've used this analogy
many times: A doctor who specializes in Brain Surgery while trying to build
a business as a Protologist will have patients with crap for brains. Sorry,
but I don't know of a more direct way to state my passionate opinon on this
issue.

Dennis S. Wish, PE
Editor - SEAINT Online
publication of the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California
(SEAOSC)
SEAOSC Office - seaosc(--nospam--at)aol.com
Dennis, you seem to have become quite vitriolic as of late.  I appreciate
all the good information you have contributed to the list; but even you have
asked some questions, which I as a dumb architect thought, "Gee, doesn't
everybody know that?"
I have also done structural design in additions and remodelings of projects
originally worked on by licensed engineers that didn't come close to meeting
any reasonable interpretation of the code.
A license to do architecture or a license to do engineering doesn't mean
much of anything other than the state thinks you are smart enough to know
your limits.

Roger Davis
Architect

SDS Architects, Inc
205 N. Dewey Street
Eau Claire, WI 54703
715-832-1605
rdavis(--nospam--at)sdsarch.com


-----Original Message-----
From:	Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent:	Monday, May 17, 1999 1:20 PM
To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject:	Re: MaxBeam, MaxQuake, MaxWind

>From the Office
of Dennis S. Wish, PE
Editor - SEAINT Online

In a message dated 5/15/99 7:07:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
scaldwell(--nospam--at)halff.com writes:
<< From the literature that was provided, it is pretty clear that these
programs are marketed primarily to non-engineers.  In fact, the brochures
state:  "Easy to use structural software for architects, builders, drafters,
engineers, and building departments."  Perhaps this software, in addition to
prescriptive building code requirements, explains why some architects feel
competent in designing wood frame structures (thereby causing premature
aging for Dennis Wish and others). >>
.... The fact that it was marketed to Architects, builders and designers
(draftspersons) was very disturbing. It reflects many of the fears of those
on this list that believe a full understanding of structures is a mandatory
prerequesite to using any engineering program.
Dennis - That would also eliminate a lot of engineers but not every
architect.
I have since discussed this with a few software vendors - all of whom sell
structural software to architects. I understand the developers business
decision, but also am comfortable that these softwares are being written
under the supervision of engineers who understand the methodology they are
marketing.
I do, however, have a bias toward any software that places powerful tools in
unskilled hands. This happens to be one that I suspect is used predominately
by non-engineers. Is this bad - in my opinion yes. I've used this analogy
many times: A doctor who specializes in Brain Surgery while trying to build
a business as a Protologist will have patients with crap for brains. Sorry,
but I don't know of a more direct way to state my passionate opinon on this
issue.

Dennis S. Wish, PE
Editor - SEAINT Online
publication of the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California
(SEAOSC)
SEAOSC Office - seaosc(--nospam--at)aol.com
Dennis, you seem to have become quite vitriolic as of late.  I appreciate
all the good information you have contributed to the list; but even you have
asked some questions, which I as a dumb architect thought, "Gee, doesn't
everybody know that?"
I have also been involved in additions and remodelings of projects
originally worked on by licensed engineers that didn't come close to meeting
any reasonable interpretation of the code.
A license to do architecture or a license to do engineering doesn't mean
much of anything other than the state thinks you are smart enough to know
your limits.
Sincerely,
Roger Davis
Architect