Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: PEMB document/review

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
All of the points that Paul made are very good.  That is what we need in this discussion is basically some direction for ourselves and for the metal building suppliers.  There are some things they could do that would make their types of projects easier on all of us.

I know a common industry terminology would be a big help.  Some of the terms I used in my document are used by Butler and some others, but not all others.  I think we could easily nudge MBMA into adopting common terminology over time.

I do see the document weak in delineating a "local supplier" versus a metal building manufacturer/supplier.  That definitely needs to be written better.   I refer to it in one or two places, but you can have a good manufactured product put up by a poorly qualified local supplier and visa versa.

The terminology of pre-engineered versus re-used engineering was my way of showing how the industry has changed over the last 20 years.  But again, the final words we decide on need to be consistent with us and MBMA, that would be a big help.

Thanks for the comments.

Ron Martin
Tuscaloosa, AL

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   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) 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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********