Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Field welding

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The point is that codes are minimum levels.  Call it minimum consensus
levels if you want.  And codes achieve life safety with a little more in
some cases now a days.

I am not advocating the engineers just willie-nillie go above and beyond
code level.  Frankly, such decisions more the clients to make (i.e. how
much money does the client want to spend to go beyond code level if at
all).  Sometimes there might be some darn good reasons to go beyond code
level, which many businesses with critical manufacturing operations (i.e.
things shut down and business goes bye-bye) have discovered after
earthquakes.  As a result, some client specifically want more that code
level design.  And in some cases, insurance companies might require it
(code level design in theory insures that no one is killed or severely
hurt...it does not insure that insurance companies will not have to pay
out the wazzo for fixing damaged buildings).

And the buck does not stop just with the engineer.  In otherwords, the
engineer is not the only authority.  The code is just as much the
"authority" even though it does not breath or make decisions.  If an
engineer does not design to at least code, said engineer will not be "the
authority" for very long as they may likely lose their license.  In
otherwords, yes, the buck stops with the engineer unless the engineer's
buck is short of the code's buck...in which case, the buck stops with the
code as the engineer is wrong.  Of course, it is not always easy to really
know where the code "buck stops" (i.e. code provisions can be a little
hard to interpret at times).

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Bill Polhemus wrote:

> Scott Maxwell wrote:
>
> >I don't want to give the impression that just believe that what the
> >engineer requires is pure "gospel".
> >
> Well, but the buck stops with the Engineer. To whom is given great
> responsibility must also be given great authority.
>
> I don't have a problem with being that "authority," I just have a
> problem with what I see as arbitrary requirements that don't come from
> the immense knowledge-base we've put together over decades, as codified
> in our codes and standards.
>
> We ought to refer to those, first, before we head off on our own
> recognizance. I actually LIKE this "consensus building" thing.
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********