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)soha.com
<< 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.