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

RE: Aase ruling

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I should think this has more to do with the permissible standards codified
in the building codes.

While you might be able to argue whether those standards are adequate for a
given application, the fact remains that people with a stake in the design
and construction of buildings have put much time and effort into framing
these codes, making them acceptable for adoption as legally binding
documents, and improving them over time.

You can just as well argue that you are not working in your clients' best
interest if you unilaterally exceed the buidling code design standards, than
if you adhere to them where they might be "less stringent" than you would
like.

I think you as the structural engineer of record have that option, but your
clients have options too.

Remember the article that made the rounds awhile back from some local L.A.
newsmagazine, that talked about how the REAL opponents to a comprehensive
program of inspection of structural beam-to-column welds in existing
buildings were the OWNERS of the buildings themselves. You'd think they
wouldn't want to take the risk of future damage or loss from these problems,
but the fact is they WERE willing to take the risk far more than they were
willing to pay money out of pocket to have the inspections and possible
repairs done.

It really is all about dollars and cents. You can purse your lips all you
want, but that's ALWAYS the bottom line.

William L. Polhemus, Jr., P.E.
Polhemus Engineering Company
Katy, Texas
Phone 281-492-2251
Fax 281-492-8203


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Goodrich [mailto:dang(--nospam--at)karren.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 11:19 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Aase ruling


This brings up an interesting point.  There is a perception
out there that commercial projects should be built to a
higher standard than residential.  Shouldn't they be the
same?  I've designed homes that are significantly larger
than some of the commercial projects I've worked on.
I realize that there will be differences based on
occupancy and other related matters.

Are we as an engineering community holding commercial
jobs to a higher standard than homes?  One example I
can think of would be the amount of reinforcing required
in foundation walls.

Dan Goodrich, P.E.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Moore" <nmoore(--nospam--at)innercite.com>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:33 PM
Subject: RE: Aase ruling


> Jason and Dennis:
>
> On the other hand,  I had a take-over project with 46 townhouses.  23
> uphill and 23 downhill, basically two plans, each alike.  The foundation,
> framing and exterior stucco completed.  Although every one of the  plans
> were the same, it appeared to be a different crew on each one.
>
> Took us three years to complete the project, including putting a
structural
> designer on the site to straightened out all of the glitches.  The
> superintendent,  who was from a central California mountain area, accussed
> us of "commercially" engineering the buildings.  Of course the project was
> a 1000 feet from the San Andreas fault and was on a high bluff facing the
> ocean.
>
> The sherriff came in one day and took him off the project.  This was
> sometime after he had threatened one of my engineers.
>
> Neil Moore,  S.E.
> neil moore and associates
>
>
>
>
>
>