Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: ACI 117

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
You are correct -the SUBJ: of the thread is ACI 117,  which I guess I should know since I was the one that started it to comment on the fact that ACI 117 was not a well written document.  I also commented that ACI 301 was not a well written document and was frequently misused.
 
A discussion of how an engineer incorrectly claimed that ACI 301 required the contractor test the concrete certainly seemed a locigal extension of the original post.  But apparently not,  I guess I should have started a new thread with the SUBJ:  "Incompetent Engineers".
 
It's not entirely clear to me why you think people around the world are interested in your whining about how everyone ignores you,  but heck,  if it makes you feel good, go at it.  It's no worse than your political commentary. 
 
Some people would chose to spend their time doing something about a problem rather than whining about it,  but that's just some people.
 
 
Gail Kelley 
 
 
In a message dated 2/9/2005 9:23:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc writes:
> Unless I completely lost track of the thread,  there was no discussion
> of "your market."  We were discussing concrete testing.

No, YOU were attempting to discuss concrete testing.

I was discussing the futility of expecting to have any say-so whatsoever
in an environment where everyone, from the Owner to the Contractor to
the Building Official, routinely ignores the Building Code, the drawings
and the specifications. Please note that the SUBJ: of the thread is ACI
117, which is used to specify tolerances in  concrete construction
specifications.

Instead of reading what I wrote, however, you somehow veered into these
comments about competency.