Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: ASCE 7-05 Errata - Caution: content contains whining

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: Message
Even though I will likely get attacked for commenting...
While I will whole heartedly agree that it is strange that you are getting a printing that supposedly was printed in 11/07 that supposedly contains errata and it does not include errata that was published around 11 months earlier, might I suggest that before jumping all over ASCE, it might be nice to find out if there is a logical reason?  While I would be the first to say it does not make sense, I will also be the first to admit that it is possible that there is some perfectly logical reason why this has taken place that I am not aware of.
As to loose leaf, personally, I like bound versions better, but I can see why others might like three binder versions.  Of course, I would think that two different binding/publishing methods would likely increase costs just due to two different printing/binding procedures and also due to having to maintain stock of two different types of books (and the resulting issues with how many to print at a time for reasonable selling of inventory).  But then, of course everyone would be potentially whining about having to pay more than they are right now for a code document/standard they think magic fairies produce and should be free.
As to Bill's comments about errata in general, could it be that they had printed a bunch of copies that they needed to sell before they printed more...and as a result, may not have had a chance yet to print more copies that would have included errata?  <sarcasm> No, I guess not.  That is too logical...besides, they are supposed to print one just for you, right? </sarcasm>
As to the issue of jurisdictions accepting errata, techinically, they should be automatically adopted as errata is supposed to purely be correcting printing and publishing errors, not the intent of the committee.  The idea behind errata is that the committee voted upon/approved something, but the record keeping process and/or printing/publishing process did not properly put in the document what the committee approved.  Since it was actually approved by the committee, there should be no need for further "approval".  Now, from a practical point of view, I suppose it is entirely possible that a jurisdiction might still want to review and "approve" errata, but theoritically it should not be necessary.  Thus, while I can "theoretically" answer the question, I suppose it will really depend on your local jurisdiction.  Thus, I am afraid I don't really have an answer.  But, then this is NOT a new issue, as I am sure that there was errata for the 1997 UBC and the versions of the UBC before it.  Thus, it is NOT just an ASCE 7 or IBC issue.
Adrian, MI
-----Original Message-----
From: Rhkratzse(--nospam--at) [mailto:Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 3:47 PM
To: T.W.Allen(--nospam--at); seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05 Errata - Caution: content contains whining

Heaven forbid that I should add to the whining, but:

I bought my "Second Printing" copy of 7-05 in 11/07 and it clearly states "Including Supplement No. 1 and Errata," but it DOES NOT contain even the January 6, 2006 Errata. 

Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.
Richmond CA USA

In a message dated 2/18/08 12:23:48 PM, T.W.Allen(--nospam--at) writes:
I just finished going through the errata ( for ASCE 7. No, I’m not whining that there are errata. I’m whining because:
Based on when I bought the document, I shouldn’t have had so much errata. I bought it late last year. I’ve entered errata from January, 2006. I think it’s irresponsible for ASCE to sell a printed document with known errors.

It would be nice if the document were in a ringed binder and the errata published in a way that one could merely swap pages. Is that too much to ask? Note that I didn’t say “Is that too much to ask considering the retail price of the document?”

Now for the question I should have asked before I went through this mess. How do I know that the errata I’ve just incorporated has been accepted into the CBC2007?
T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
Consulting Structural Engineers
V (949) 248-8588 • F(949) 209-2509

Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.