Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Salary Survey

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The 1997 UBC code may or may not be well thought out with respect to wood
frame.  The design models we use may or may not be accurate.  By whatever
path, we have now reached a point where as engineers we are reexamining how
we design wood frame buildings.  We must all agree though that this type of
structure, with respect to California practice, should no longer be thought
of as a stepchild.  What services are we providing our clients?  Hopefully
more than just making sure a couple of beams and shear walls are per code.
Value engineering (construction costs), product evaluation, course of
construction observation, recommendations to clients as to when to go beyond
the minimum code requirements have now become a part of the services that
many engineers offer.  Our design drawings are not simply an echo of our
structural calculations but a set of instructions to the workers as to how
to build efficient, safe, and serviceable structures.  Our drawings serve as
a part of the contract that our clients will sign with their sub-contractors
requiring performance in exchange for money. Our drawings serve as a defense
with respect to the absolute liability that builders have for their product.
Given these responsibilities we carry, plus the ultimate responsibility of
assuring the safety of those who live and work in our buildings from
collapse from earthquake or other cause, my point is to now ask for fees on
par with other types of professional industries.  The 1997 UBC gives us
cause to do so and catch up with the responsibilities that have been
accumulating on our shoulders.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 11:23 AM
To: george(--nospam--at)borm.com; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Salary Survey


In a message dated 9/27/1999 10:31:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
george(--nospam--at)BORM.com writes:

<< By the way, I think that
 a lot of the complaining about the new 1997 UBC code (as it relates to wood
 frame) has not so much to do with the fact that takes more work to design
to
 but that engineers will make less per project.  >>

I think this is a bit presumptious. It may be true that we are not receiving

fair compensation, but the majority of those discussing or in my case
ranting 
over the code has less to do with fees and more to do with not wanting to 
design any structure where I don't have a complete understanding of the 
intention of the code or the performance of the materials. I did believe
that 
structures performed as I had expected in past events and don't feel the
same 
is presently justified.
It is a search for understanding with very few who seem either capable or 
willing to share this important information with us.

Dennis