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

RE: AISC II or the Costs of Doing Business

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
No, but a Hardy Frame or Panel might be a more cost effective solution over embedded columns or moment frames from the design cost point of view.
We need to get something straight - in my point of view, AISC is better than some, worse than others in this thread. However, the problem is NOT AISC but an industry wide mentality that tends to disregard the small office who is not building structures that are as noticeable or profitable to material manufacturers as large companies produce. The focus of the discussion appears to have centered on the AISC Database when the real issue is principles. Copyrights are not a fact of nature - they are a legally binding contract between the user of (in this case) the book and the publisher. For all practical matters the issue of whether the values or formula's have been copyrighted or are copyrightable is something that we can't answer.
We can, however, go the step further in providing information related to the thread as to how the cost of doing business is on the rise and becoming a burden for small offices and probably even mid-sized office not to mention independents.
 
We also should set some ground rules because we are breaking rules left and right here. I would attempt to avoided the following arguments:
1) use of the term Always - it "generally" get's you into trouble.
2) Choice - as in "It was your "choice" to open a small office"
3) Unfair - little in the world is actually fair until you benefit from it.
 
What we should be discussing is how our industry should help to protect entrepreneuralship because without entrepreneurs there would be no large offices employing hundreds or thousands of people. Without small offices, engineers who are laid off have very little chance of finding work elsewhere.
The other issue is the industries recognition of the Internet as a new marketing tool - a way to make money, rather than give information away. At the root of it their resistance to spend money more wisely - such as utilizing technology to cut spending so as to provide more support for those designing and promoting materials. I'm not picking out any on organization or association in this comment but I have seen little in the discussion as how to stretch a tight dollar. I have heard that when the mills decided competition was too strong, the lost revenue was passed along to the engineering community.
 
Let me ask this: If the LRFD method for Steel is resisted by the industry and AISC finds that they can not sell publications - do they retire the book and method or do they find another way to promote its use -- such as giving the LRFD code away for free to entice engineers to pick up their copy and learn to use it? This is no criticism - in fact it is a very good marketing tool. The same theory behind the Properties database which continues to diminish in value to the engineering community who use computers for a living. In paper publication as a reference, the Properties values are only a value to those who design manually - and as we know, this is a diminishing group.
 
Hope this helps keep the discussion in perspective.
 
Dennis S. Wish, PE
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott A. Dunham, PE [mailto:sadunham(--nospam--at)gte.net]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:18 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org; Frank E. Stewart
Subject: Re: AISC II (the facts)

John -
 
I feel compelled to ask, why were you recommending steel framing?  I would have thought it was because it was the best system for the application.  Just because you're now upset at the AISC, is masonry suddenly a better engineering solution to the problem at hand.
 
Just a thought.
Scott ~(:-)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: AISC II (the facts)

  I have guided many architects away from masonry bearing walls in favor of steel framing; but no more.  I don't want to be seen as unreasonably contentious; merely practical.
 
__________________
John P. Riley, PE, SE