Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: 3000 psi concrete and special inspection

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dmitri:

I am curious...are the construction/contract documents (plans and
specifications) that you prepare for project always "100% clear and
consistent"?  Likely not as everyone missing things, makes mistakes, etc.;
yet your construction/contract documents should be 100% clear and
consistent as they are a legally binding document, similar to a code is
(i.e. they become legally binding documents between the owner and the
contractor).

I agree that in an ideal world the code should be 100% clear and
consistent, as should any construction documents that you or I produce.
But, we live in the real world and in the real world people miss things
and make mistakes.

While those that produce codes should be open to learning which things
might need improvement and there are always things to improve, I tend to
defend those that produce these documents as it is a VERY daunting task.
The simple little problem/mistake that you or I might find when doing our
work potentially was a "needle in the haystack" to those on the committee.

I would offer that if you want to critize the codes then maybe you should
at least be in the "driver's seat" (i.e. participate on a code committe)
before critizing too much.  After all, it is much easier to be a "back
seat driver".

So, I encourage everyone to cut them a little slack...at least until you
have experienced it first hand.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Dmitri Wright wrote:

> Fellow Structural Engineers,
>
> Another facet to the debate about Code clarity and Code enforceability, is
> why, as licensed professionals, our professional judgment is often overruled
> by the plans reviewer or inspector.  In many cases, they are not licensed
> engineers, and in some cases are uneducated in the principals of
> engineering.
>
> I generally tend to agree with Dennis, that the Code should be 100% clear
> and consistent.  But if it were, there would be little need to have the
> protections provided by the licensed engineer requirement on construction
> projects.  It is generally recognized that someone with the educational
> background and experience required for a license needs to direct the
> project, just for the reason that there are many unique and ambiguous design
> decisions that need to be made correctly to protect the public.  Ambiguity
> in the code gives engineers the flexibility to employ more efficient,
> creative, and in some cases safer solutions.
>
> However, this situation can be a burden when the jurisdiction takes a hard
> line or ridiculous interpretation of the Code.  Unfortunately, our
> professional engineering judgment, which has been officially recognized by
> the granting of our license, is trumped by the jurisdiction which holds the
> power of the occupancy permit.
>
> Acie might be right, we are in danger of designing buildings as lawyers, not
> as engineers.  Am I just old-fashioned, or do other list members see a
> problem with this situation?
>
> Dmitri Wright, PE
> Portland, OR
>
>
>
> >We have been turned into jail house lawyers instead of
> >engineers.  I was under the impression engineers used there experience and
> >education to make decisions on how to build structures.  Looking for
> >clarification between "footing" and "foundation" for a element designed
> >with
> >2500 or 3000 psi concrete is very sad to me. - Acie Chance
>
> >But the code is ambiguous, and somebody needs to interpret it.  We are
> >just trying to do that.
> >At the same time, the interpretation of the code by SEOR is not
> >necessarily accepted by the jurisdiction.  I have a case where, in spite
> >of the clear-cut technical proof, and the supporting opinion by APA,
> >this one big city just pushed its own weird, CYA interpretation of the
> >code, unjustifiably costing my client $$$ (literally, hundreds of
> >thousands). - Vyacheslav "Steve" Gordin, PhD
>
> >We who practice light framing understand when it is appropriate to fully
> >comply with the code and where the requirements of the code are simply
> >unreasonable. As a contract plan checker, I have yet to have a
> >residential structure (including multi-residential structures) submitted
> >based on full compliance to the 97 UBC. Furthermore, this also accounts
> >for the change in opinion by SEAOC as to what should or should not be
> >designed to full-compliance. - Dennis S. Wish, PE
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********