Subject: RE: Charlie Carter re: latest AISC Code of Standard Practice?
From: KSP <lvtakp(--nospam--at)yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 12:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
A very wise man recently started off an e-mail
regarding through plates this way so I will do the
Not to sound argumentative, BUT, this statement:
> Review and approval by the
> owner's desinated representative for design (usually
> the structural engineer
> of record) of the shop and erection drawings
> indicates that the design
> intent has been met and the fabricator "can get to
doesn't give me a very strong impression that the EOR
is accepting responsibility for the structural
adequacy of the connection design - unless this is
hidden in the concept of "design intent has been met".
Are you saying that AISC's position is still the same
as it was during the last writing of the Code but they
just aren't willing to say it so clearly? I don't
mean that to sound like I'm a smart-a**, but it seems
to me it just gives the lawyers more to argue about
when code language is not clear.
Once again, I appreciate your words of wisdom,
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.