I really didn't go far enough to explain the IMMEDIATE reason this has been
plaguing my mind.
The client is a transit system. But they have to pass everything through the
state DOT. The DOT is a weird entity (I don't mean that in a personal way,
but rather collectively, as in "sheesh, what a bureaucratic nightmare!")
I desperately need for this thing to get past the DOT without heavy
revision. I was trying to pick holes in my argument, thinking like a
bureaucrat, as to my procedure.
Actually, I already have the thing (mostly) designed, according to that
which seemeth me good (a little Bible lingo there, for you Rush Limbaugh
fans). But I can just hear them now: "But...but it's not AASHTO!!! And that
AISC whatever-it-is is for BUILDINGS!!!")
But I really can't make this peg fit into that hole.
The DOT is not a "stakeholder" in this thing. They are simply a regulatory
agency; they're not paying for any of the engineering time (and they hate
our client anyway). But by their heel-digging, they can give our client
reason to say "hey, they're saying you've screwed it up; fix it RIGHT or no
soup for you!" (TRANSLATION: We aren't paying you for the additional
Sorry for the stream of consciousness stuff, I'm just feeling negative
Regards to all except the guy who told me to stop saying mean things about
AISC (which I WASN'T; I want to use the AISC Code, actually!)
William L. Polhemus, Jr., P.E.
Polhemus Engineering Company
From: Gerard Madden [mailto:GMadden(--nospam--at)mplusl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: Something That Bugs Me About The AISC Code
Time for you to author a new code for vault covers.
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org