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

RE: UBC: How Do You Interpret 1997 UBC P

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>Lastly, it is hard to punish someone for engineering judgment.  My company
>does a lot of plan reviews and the general philosophy is unless I can point
>directly to code section that is violated, the design engineer is assumed
>correct.

The trick with engineering judgement is sorting out whether it's good
judgement or bad.' Plenty of the latter floating around, and much of it
deserves punishment. And you might want to review your general
philosophy. One of the reasons your company does plan reviews is to catch
instances of bad judgement. That would include instances where the code
is mis-applied or where the letter of the code is followed and the intent
violated. Codes aren't cookbooks, and if design engineers were always
correct, there wouldn't be any need for reviews.

Christopher Wright P.E.    |"They couldn't hit an elephant from
chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com        | this distance"   (last words of Gen.
___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)
http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********