Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: ASCE 7-05 Errors

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

(Re-sent due to transmission errors.)

While "zero errata" is not reasonable to expect, I do think that codes should be held to a higher standard of care than project construction documents.  A code is used by numerous engineers and can have an effect on numerous constructed projects.  

However, it is also true that most code requirements do undergo a higher level of review than most project documents, due to the number of design professionals involved with the code development and review process.  I've been involved with code writing committees, and I am always perplexed how some errors get past so many reviewers.  But I suspect that part of the problem is that codes are developed by engineers who donate their time, and that time is often limited. 

Bill Sherman

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 8:29 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05 Errors

And I will ask again...are YOUR documents that YOU produce always 100% accurate?  Keep in mind that YOUR documents (drawings and specs) are also all "legal documents"...they are part of a contract that a contractor/builder are legally obligated to follow.  Do you put out "errata" (i.e. revised drawings)?

I am not saying that catching the errors in the codes is not is.  But, all those people tossing stones should remember that they are not perfect either and have more than likely made mistakes on things that they produce as well.

I have NEVER come across a perfect set of contract documents, including my own.  So, unless you can say that you ALWAYS produce 100% accurate contract documents, then you should be careful about what you say about others.  Something about living in glass houses while throwing rocks comes to mind...


Adrian, MI

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 ndz28(--nospam--at) wrote:

> Time for everyone to wake up.
> The 2% error rate does not seem that high, but what was missed in that analysis, is that if just one formula is completely off, your entire design can be 100% off. That is what you have to keep in mind.
> What one has to consider is that this is a legal document. When we as
> engineers follow this 'technical publication', we become 'legally'
> responsible for  mistakes that are out of our control. Now can
> someone tell me for sure that all the errors have been picked up? Will
> a new errata be published 3 months from now, 2 months after I
> completed a new project? Am I safe  in basing my calculations on a
> publication that is so full of error?Â
> Keep in mind that the same problems were encountered with the '97 UBC and the 3 volumes of the Seismic manuals, and it took a couple of years to iron thing out.  That's why there is no excuse for the sloppy proofing this time around!
> There has to be more proof reading, and if more time is needed, than
> so be it. Where is the rush? Are buildings collapsing all around us? 
> Or is this a money making venture?Â
> More mistakes will be made by practicing engineers by this constant code changes, than if the existing code is just left in place for a while longer.
> I don't want to get personal with anyone, I just have to vent.
> Andrew Vidikan, PE
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Hauer <lrhauer(--nospam--at)>
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)
> Sent: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 2:33 pm
> Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05 Errors
> Yes, no set of construction documents is 100% error free and no
> technical publication is 100% error free, but 24 pages of errata
> sounds excessive. Most constr. docs errors are typos inwhich we can
> interpret the meaning, (ie. "wood beam" spelled "wood bem." But a
> mistake in a formula in a technical publication can have disasterous
> results, (i.e. a "greater than" sign reversed to "less than"). From
> the postings, it sounds like ASCE dropped the ball at our expense. Â
> Larry Hauer S.E. Â
> >From: "Mark E. Deardorff" <mdeardorff(--nospam--at)>Â
> >Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)>Â
> >To: <seaint(--nospam--at)>Â
> >Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05 ErrorsÂ
> >Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:27:12 -0700Â Â Not as bad as AISC's goof on
> >the Seismic Design Manual. It was too >extensive to treat with
> >errata.  Mark E. Deardorff, S.E. Structural Engineer 
> ><> Burkett & Wong EngineersÂ
> >3434 4th AveÂ
> >San Diego, CA 92103Â
> >P 619.299.5550Â
> >F 619.299.9934Â
> >mdeardorff(--nospam--at)burkett-wong.comÂ