Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Field welding

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
And you think that there are not "arbitrary" things in the codes?  Dude,
you need to get out and watch the "sausage being made" sometime!  The
recent masonry post/question points to a great example that does not even
require you to see the "sausage being made" (aka go to a code committee
meeting).  If you have a MSJC (aka ACI 530) handy (1999, 2002 and 2005
will all do), then open up to section 1.11 and then read the commentary
for that section.  The commentary straight out says that the amount of
steel required is arbitrary.  Further more, I would say you have been
sleeping when people have discussed seismic R factors and how they are
determine (discussed more than once on the list).  While there is loose
technical reasons for the relative values, they are by and large the
result of political wrangling (aka "arbitrary").  They just happen to be
arbitrarily selected by the consensus of a committee or group.

Point is that while the code is good and is by and large backed up by
technical/scientific material, there are arbitrary aspects to it.  The
codes are good things, but they certainly ain't perfect.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Bill Polhemus wrote:

> Scott Maxwell wrote:
>
> >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 have no problem with going beyond code values. I just don't like the
> arbitrary nature of provisions like "we'll call this field weld X
> percent 'as good' as a shop weld," which has no basis in the consensus,
> and typically can't be demonstrated by the engineer as being reliable.
>
> But you and I know that if you go beyond what the code allows, from time
> to time the contractor will scream (even if it was in the Ds and Ss when
> he bid on 'em), tell the owner he's got to have more money, and the
> squeamish owner will side with the contractor in the great majority of
> cases.
>
> Sorry about the non-sequitur, but that's a reality I also take into
> account when I put notes on drawings (or provisions in specs, for those
> of you joined at the hip with CSI).
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********