Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: ASCE 7-08

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Oh, come on, Joe, it is not THAT bad.
But I wholeheartedly agree with Ralph's and Jordan's comments.  May be, because I am getting old and cynical.
On a more constructive note. I would suggest an industry referendum with one question: "Should we prohibit any changes in the structural portions of the code unless they deal with some newly discovered (physically discovered) problems, and/or prevent the loss of life, and/or result in more than 7.5% savings in the actual construction cost (at least for this particular component)"? 
By the vote of engineers and builders, it will pass.  And then I would make it into some kind of a supreme industry law (constitution) that will govern all code changes henceforth.  And the scientists will have to work much harder for their research to make it into the code.
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:09
Subject: Re: ASCE 7-08

In a message dated 1/24/2008 10:15:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, Rhkratzse(--nospam--at) writes:
Jordan, I'm with you ALL the way!

The older I get the more cynical I become.  Is there ANY realistic connection between the "fine-tuning" (AKA nit-picking) and the actual results for the occupant/user?


People have a false sense of security that a structure that meets code is safe, will not be damaged in an earthquake or will not leak.  Most problems that arise are contractor related not code related. 
But ask anyone it is always the engineers fault...even if an engineer was not involved.
Joe Venuti
Johnson & Nielsen Associates
Palm Springs, CA

Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.