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

Re: MaxBeam, MaxQuake, MaxWind

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 5/17/99 1:21:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
rdavis(--nospam--at)sdsarch.com writes:

<< 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 >>


Roger,
The problem with stating an opinion is that it is bound to be interpreted too 
narrowly. I sent a post a few hours ago that I think clarifies my position. 
There are architects who became engineers, architects who are well qualified 
to do engineering and engineers that may have received their registration in 
a Crackerjack box.

However, the majority of those who practice are smart enough to know that 
they can not maintain a sufficient expertise by spreading themselves to 
thinly. I'm not arguing with the Architect who performes the remodel and has 
not other responsiblity but to size gravity load members. My experience is 
that Architect in my area want to avoid paying an engineer and are willing, 
at the expense of the homeowner, to design structural elements for large 
custom home and commercial properties. I've plan checked all of the 
individuals in my area who do this and have found serious flaws in each of 
their work.
In most cases, they simply do not keep up with what is current in the code - 
structurally. Many believe that they can make a rigid connection with wood at 
a foundation by using a mechanical connector.

I'm not generally one who simply returns the work with a broad statement that 
they should hire an engineer to do it right. Rather, I've spent a great deal 
of time helping them get it correct by explaining what they should have known 
and would be expected to know had they taken an engineering exam.

I hope you won't take my comments too narrowly, but I believe they reflect an 
opinion that is true for the majority rather than the few who are adequatly 
skilled.

One final question, if the Architect is well qualified to practice 
structures, why not simply take the PE exam to prove their capabilites? At 
least this provides a minimum level of assurance.

respectfully,
Dennis