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

Re: More "furrin code" stuff

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
> From: Peter Higgins <JillHiggins(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>

> LRFD, CAN S16 and S16.1, Eurocode 3 and the Australian standards have all=
> been rigorously compared for prediction of ultimate capacity. They all gi=
> ve essentially the same answer (at least well within the precision of our
> knowlege of the loads). To suggest that the Canadians or the Americans, o=
> r the Euorpeans, etc. etc. have different =
> safety standards is sumultanteously ignorant and insular.

> Peter Higgins, SE

For the most part, the comparisons have been made on simple members
(e.g. comparing the column curves between codes). When you accumulate
the differences caused by code and standard variations you can arrive at
values that can get you into boiling water in court.

My previous comments were directed toward the concept of reworking the
analysis from one code to make it presentable in a second.

"To suggest that the Canadians or the Americans, or the Euorpeans, etc.
etc. have different safety standards", reflects reality. However, the
effect may be borne from ignorance and the intent insular. Consider
this; why have we not achieved a trilateral agreement on reciprocity of
professional engineering services as permitted under NAFTA? Texas seems
to be leading the way without followers.

-- 
Paul Ransom, P. Eng.
Civil/Structural/Project/International
Burlington, Ontario, Canada
<mailto:ad026(--nospam--at)hwcn.org> <http://www.hwcn.org/~ad026/civil.html>