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

Re: Seismic Design Manual - Vol. 2.

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Constantine, you are very mistaken my friend. There is nothing ironic about 
the two previous posts. But there is a very arrogant attitude out there 
amongst a certain community. As I stated in my letter, the design manual 
should have been released and seminars presented before implementing the 97 
Code.  The manuals should have been checked and rechecked for errors before 
printing.  The number and severity of errors that are present in the design 
manual, Vol. I, as well as in the 97 UBC (at least in the first printing 
which I have) is inexcusable. We are talking about a legal document, and in 
this litigious world the sharks are just waiting to get us.  Besides with 
footnotes and formulas being incorrect, our entire design is  off without us 
even knowing about it.. The errata for the building code and Vol. I was 
released several months after the code implementation (Keep in mind that some 
municipalities started using the 97 UBC as far back as 1998). Who knows how 
many engineers may be liable for following the code? So lets not minimize 
these errors and the delays in rectifying them. 
Regarding the volunteers, their work is admirable and greatly appreciated. 
However if they do not have the time to devote to more in-depth seminars and 
putting forth the design manuals on time, than allocate more moneys from our 
dues towards compensating fairly these engineers, and if need be also raise 
the seminar fees to cover the costs. As far as I am concerned structural 
engineering is my livelihood. I don't have the time to fully teach myself the 
interpretations of this code, withous some guide.  Almost everyone that I 
have talked to has  different interpretations: I would rather pay a little 
more, go to an extensive seminar that covers the major changes in the code, 
So as you see there is nothing ironic about what was said. It is the 
frustration of the front line practicing engineers that you see trying to 
make some sense of the code and the manuals.

In a message dated 5/12/00 3:23:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, csh(--nospam--at) 

<< I don't mean to be cynical, but it is pretty ironic. One guy complains 
about the Seismic Design Manual for the 1997 UBC not being published in a 
timely manner, accompanied with statewide seminars. The other guy complains 
about too many errors and the fact that it might be better to hold off on 
releasing a document until it is properly checked using a consensus approach.
 So basically, the documnet should be produced fast with no errors and no 
ommissions and at no cost (volunteer effort). Sounds like any structural 
design - from a developer's point of view (or his/her dreams!)
 I apologize, but I could not resist.
 Constantine  >>