FW: STANDARD PRACTICE[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "Seaint (E-mail)" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: FW: STANDARD PRACTICE
- From: "LaCount, Curt" <Curt.LaCount(--nospam--at)jacobs.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:49:56 -0400
From: Caldwell, Stan [mailto:scaldwell(--nospam--at)halff.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: STANDARD PRACTICE
Submitting a calculation package is more likely to produce an efficient and safe design in my opinion. Omitting its need is putting too much faith the EOR.
I don't see anything wrong with relying on the EOR. After all, he/she is the one doing the heavy lifting and is the one who is ultimately responsible for the adequacy of the structural design. Does your doctor provide detailed backup on how he/she arrived at your diagnosis? Does your lawyer provide detailed backup on how he/she arrived at the legal advice that you sought? Believe it or not, as a licensed engineer, you also are being paid primarily for your judgment. Your are not being paid to run numbers or draw sketches. All structural engineers that I know run numbers and draw sketches every day. It is a necessary step in clearly thinking through a problem and communicating with co-workers. However, in most jurisdictions east of the Rockies, it is neither necessary nor beneficial to submit those calculation sets for review by anyone outside your office. To the contrary, I would be concerned with the competence of any structural engineer who might falsely derive any degree of comfort through the calculation submittal and review process. I would also be concerned with their efficiency. Good engineering practice has nothing to do with calculation submittals.
Stan Caldwell in Dallas, Texas
The buck stops here!
... Harry S. Truman
- Prev by Subject: RE: STANDARD PRACTICE
- Next by Subject: RE: STANDARD PRACTICE
- Previous by thread: RE: STANDARD PRACTICE
- Next by thread: Re: STANDARD PRACTICE