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]
Bill,

I will also admit that I don't personally understand the notion that
codes/standards should be held to a "higher QA process" than a one-off
project.  While I can see the perspective that you are coming from, I tend
to "reverse the view"...so to speak.  In that sense, just because it is a
"one-off" project is an error that results in harm or loss of life less
important or severe?  When I look at it that way, I personally view it as
it should not matter whether it is a one-off project, a repeat project, or
a code/standard...the same care should be taken in all cases.

And in reference to your comment about charging more for repeat projects,
do you use a "higher QA process" when you design a project that will be
repeated several or many times?  Or do you just charge more because your
potentially liability increased and use the same QA process that you use
for one-off projects?  It is entirely possible that you do increase your
scrutiny for such projects, but if not...then why should you be expecting
others to walk your talk when you don't?

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Bill Allen wrote:

> Scott -
>
> I have to agree with the responses who believe that a "standard" should be
> held to a higher QA process than a one-off project related document. An
> error in a construction document produces one error. An error in a standard
> produces one error for every time that error is referenced. That's why we
> (should) charge more when we produce a document that is going to be used
> multiple times (think tract or modular housing). An error on these documents
> is more sever than an error on a set of plans for a single custom home.
>
> Of course, no matter how sophisticated the QA process becomes, there will
> still be errors. After all, it's created by humans. I do think the
> correction process could be better. After all, how does one find out that
> there are errata? The only way I found out is by this list. I think it would
> be better if the document was published as loose leaf, a subscription card
> included so that one can get periodic updates.
>
> My two cents. Spend it as you wish.
>
> T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
> ALLEN DESIGNS
> Consulting Structural Engineers
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 7:29 AM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > 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
> > important...it 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...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Scott
> > Adrian, MI
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 ndz28(--nospam--at)aol.com 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)hotmail.com>
> > > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > > 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
> > > Â
> > > Larry Hauer S.E.Â
> > > Â
> > > >From: "Mark E. Deardorff" <mdeardorff(--nospam--at)burkett-wong.com>Â
> > > >Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>Â
> > > >To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>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
> > >extensiveÂ
> > > >to treat with errata.Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Mark E. Deardorff, S.E.Â
> > > >Structural EngineerÂ
> > > > <http://www.burkett-wong.com/> Burkett & Wong EngineersÂ
> > > >3434 4th AveÂ
> > > >San Diego, CA 92103Â
> > > >P 619.299.5550Â
> > > >F 619.299.9934Â
> > > >mdeardorff(--nospam--at)burkett-wong.comÂ
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > > _____Â
> > > >Â
> > > >From: Garner, Robert [mailto:rgarner(--nospam--at)moffattnichol.com]Â
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:15 PMÂ
> > > >To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.orgÂ
> > > >Subject: ASCE 7-05 ErrorsÂ
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Just a tip that the latest errata for ASCE 7-05 is available fromÂ
> > > >SEInstitute.org All twenty four pages! In addition, S.K. Ghosh
> > >publishedÂ
> > > >some ASCE 7 Seismic Provisions Errata in the April issue of
> > StructuralÂ
> > > >Engineer. I don't know if Ghosh's errata was picked up by SEInstitute
> > orÂ
> > > >not.Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > >These errata are so extensive that I think you can ignore buying ASCE
> > 7-05Â
> > > >and just download the errata for free.Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > >I think I'm just going to go ahead and do really sloppy engineering on
> > myÂ
> > > >next project - I can always issue errata, right?Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Bob Garner, S.E.Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > >R. GarnerÂ
> > > >Â
> > > >Moffatt & NicholÂ
> > > >Â
> > > >Tel.: (619) 220-6050Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Fax.: (619) 220-6055Â
> > > >Â
> > > >e-mail: rgarner(--nospam--at)moffattnichol.comÂ
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > >The information contained in the e-Mail, including any accompanyingÂ
> > > >documents or attachments, is from Moffatt & Nichol and is intended only
> > forÂ
> > > >the use of the individual or entity named above, and is privileged
> > andÂ
> > > >confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that
> > anyÂ
> > > >disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents
> > ofÂ
> > > >this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in
> > error,Â
> > > >please notify us.Â
> > > >Â
> > > >Â
> > > Â
> > > _________________________________________________________________Â
> > > PC Magazine’s 2007 editors’ choice for best Web mail—award-winning
> > Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-
> > us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507Â
> > > Â
> > > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***Â
> > > * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.aspÂ;
> > > * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of
> > Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or
> > UnSubscribe, please go to:Â
> > > *Â
> > > * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.aspÂ;
> > > *Â
> > > * 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 *******
> > ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________________________
> > > AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free
> > from AOL at AOL.com.
> > >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********