Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: IBC 2007 Wind calcs.

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Scott,

I am going to get a bit testy (yes, you all probably already believe I was
testy).

>From my perspective, we are not that far apart.  I definitely believe that
there is a lot of overly complex stuff in the codes.  I also have some
issues with the 3 year cycle.  I do believe that change in necessary, but
also believe that sometimes we seem to do change just to do change.

Where we will disagree is the pointing of figures.  While I am not really on
any code committees, I know quite few people who are.  And frankly, I take
offense to your comments.  While they might apply to some that are involved
with the code development process, I consider them rather slanderous when
aimed at many that are involved with code development.  There are lot of
good people who dontate their time and money trying to make things better
only to get dumped on by the likes of you.

I personally believe that if you are going to point fingers, then you also
need to point them at yourself and every other engineer out there that
cannot be bothered to be part of the process for any number of reasons (many
of which are completely valid and reasonable).  It is the lack of a desire
(or ability) by the engineering community at large to be part of the process
that allows some with vested interests to drive the process in ways that it
should not be driven.

I understand the frustration.  In many ways I share it.  But, I have never
understood how "back seat driving" the code process will solve anything.  It
is a lot easier to complain about stuff then to actually propose solutions
that will work.  What seems easy to you might not be so easy if you were
more involved in the process.  After all, how many times has some architect
complained about something that a structural engineer did and maybe said
some to the effect of "it should be easy to do it this way instead" when in
reality it is far from easy?

And frankly, if the biggest gripe is having to pay $1200 every three years,
then as blunt and brutal as it might be, my response is get over it.  Like
EVERY business, there are costs associated with operating.  I dare say that
there are lots of other professions that have to shell a LOT more money than
$1200 in order to operate with the tools and information that they need.

OK, I will try to get off my soapbox now.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan(--nospam--at)usace.army.mil] 
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 9:10 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: IBC 2007 Wind calcs.


In Alaska it could be wind or seismic. Kind of depends on the location and
building.    Welcome to the IBC CA.  You non West coast people griping about
the seismic - you're right it sucks.  They keep changing it every three
years just like the concrete anchors, wind, snow, load combos, steel seismic
code, IBC chapter 23 etc... etc... etc... But you know what I feel safer
every three years knowing the buildings I walk into were designed with $1200
worth of new code books. 

The building code illuminati have become a selfperpetuating,  promoting
their building materials, seminar giving, design example book writing,
software writing, buy $1200 worth of code books every couple of years
behemoth. Beware of the building code writing industrial complex.  

The codes are supposed to keep people safe.  When building codes are
complicated there will be more mistakes and it won't keep people as safe.  I
have been updating my ASCE 7-95 wind spreadsheet to the 7-05 and it is
complicated. I remember the UBC and it wasn't complicated.

Although everyone on this list service is high on the intelligence scale for
engineers, the building codes need to be catered to the lowest common
denominator.  If you don't think so, you're one of the building code
illuminati.





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