Re: AISC II (the facts)[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re: AISC II (the facts)
- From: "Scott A. Dunham, PE" <sadunham(--nospam--at)gte.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 19:06:44 -0500
"Best" is of course a subjective term. But generally, I would think that a steel frame vs. a masonry bearing system would be a fairly easy choice. Of course, you have to factor in the fact that I've worked for steel fabricators for pushing 30 years, and all of that on the east coast where seismic considerations have been ignored for most of that time.
As for my question being obtuse, maybe it is; but I still think an engineer should have some justification for making a recommendation other than whether or not the design info is provided free of charge.
As to what's absurd - having to design to outdated codes because the political entities won't listen to the experts or will listen to their biggest contributors, that's absurd! Having to pay big $$$ to be allowed to practice your profession in some states, that's absurd! But I'll stop this list before I say something obtuse.
- Prev by Subject: Re: AISC II (the facts)
- Next by Subject: Re: AISC II (the facts)
- Previous by thread: Re: AISC II (the facts)
- Next by thread: RE: AISC II or the Costs of Doing Business