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

RE: UBC: How Do You Interpret 1997 UBC P

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I haven't been following this thread too closely, and I may just be
repeating what has already been said, but the 1997 U.B.C. does make
provision for the plan checker to use their engineering judgment, for
better or worse, in regards to basic principles.  The reason I say "for
better or worse" is that sometimes you'll have a plan checker who has
the best intentions, but is not a professional engineer and is therefore
at a bit of a disadvantage in exercising engineering judgment.

Anyway, Section 106.3.3 is the generic "...sufficient information on the
plans to clearly indicate the nature of the work..." and Section 1605.2
is the generic "...shall be based on a rational analysis in accordance
with well-established principles of mechanics...complete load path...".
I know these provisions have been abused and argued over, but it helps
the professional engineer who is reviewing plans to be able to support
his or her own engineering judgment on the matter by Code.

FWIW,
Dave K. Adams, S.E.
Lane Engineers, Inc.
979 N. Blackstone St.
Tulare, CA 93274
PH:  (559) 688-5263
FAX: (559) 688-8893
E-mail:  davea(--nospam--at)laneengineers.com




-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Wright [mailto:chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 6:49 AM
To: SEAOC Newsletter
Subject: RE: UBC: How Do You Interpret 1997 UBC P


>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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********