To: "SEAOC Newsletter" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: Re: Code Created Malpractice Opportunity-Rigid v. Flexible Diap
From: Christopher Wright <chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com>
Date: Sun, 30 May 99 21:46:16 -0500
>So the question is: should we follow science for the sake of science or
>should we think with the end result in mind, which is to strive for proper
>behavior of the structure in real life situations. To put it another way,
>should we follow the letter of the code or the intent of the code. I
>personally rather do the latter.
These are odd questions. Science which does not reflect reality isn't science. And it's hard to imagine that the wording of the Building Code doesn¹t reflect the intent.
There's a parallel with the Challenger disaster, here. The engineers knew the science but they presumed to ignore it because they'd gotten away with it before and figured they could do it again. Past successes are dangerous because we engineers usually don't question them the same way we seek out reasons for failures.
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)