Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Bad Codes

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

In reality, you and I agree on the same things.  I just developed into a
little bit of a harda$$.  Sorry.

Bob Garner

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)umich.edu] 
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:36 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Bad Codes

I am curious, did the contractor fire himself (or herself) if he (or
she)
made "minor mistakes"?  Or was it a case of "I get to apply a different
standard to myself because I am 'king'"?

My point is that I don't blame anyone for hoping that codes or
construction
documents or actual construction processes to be as clean and "perfect"
as
possible.  Would I like to see codes with no errors, errata, etc?  You
bet.
But, I also smart enough to realize that it is an impossible wish.
Codes
(and contract documents) are prepared by human beings and I have yet to
encounter a perfect human being that does not make mistakes.  What
bothered
me with this whole discussion was the arrogance to suggest that code
should
be perfect when I doubt ANYONE making those demands is always putting
out
pefect documents themselves.  And the suggestion that people involved
with
the code development process do something other than a "maximum effort"
is
frankly nothing short of slander, especially consider there is not a
shread
of proof suggesting something other than maximum effort other than pure
speculation.  While I have largely only participated in code committees
as a
guest, staff, or associate (i.e. non-voting member), I have NEVER seen
ANY
committee deliberately decide to go "half ass" for a code cycle.  I am
not
aware of any decision of ACI 318 to only put in a 70% effort this past
code
cycle...and to suggest some to that effect is just plain insulting to
those
who have chosen to dedicate their time to serving the profession on that
(and other) committees.

So, it is fine to be critical and hope for, if not expect, better.  But,
I
would suggest that you don't slander their efforts and keep in mind that
if
you cannot meet the same standard that you expect of them, then maybe it
is
better to offer more realistic standards.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Garner, Robert [mailto:rgarner(--nospam--at)moffattnichol.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 10:12 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Bad Codes


Retirement?  Like most old engineers, I can't wait to retire.  Then I
can
work all the time.  Luckily, I like my work so the necessity of working
forever is O.K. with me.

I agree that the code establishment system is far from perfect - in this
country and others.  As you see, I receive criticism for not being part
of
the solution and I accept that.  But I've preferred to spend my career
trying to perfect the engineering-construction end of our spectrum.
Codes I
have left to others.  The engineering-construction endeavor is not
perfect
either, but I will go down in flames before I accept any less than
maximum
effort.  I started out in construction with a contractor that fired
people
on the spot for minor mistakes (minor but they cost the contractor $$).
I've carried this attitude ever since.

So, off the philosophy, and Happy Friday.  I think we all earned this
one.


Bob Garner

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. [mailto:design(--nospam--at)hodgsoneng.ca] 
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 5:03 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Bad Codes

What is this thing you call retirement?

I'm afraid you can be as demanding as you want but it won't do you any 
good and I'm not knocking the people who write the codes.  Having served

on a committee to write a new Canadian standard for EOT cranes, I 
learned there is more to the process than writing the technical stuff, 
at least here.  It then goes to the Can Standards Assoc who ensure that 
the document conforms to their numbering and heading system, and that 
the English grammar, spelling and syntax are correct.  Some of this will

have been done along the way, but when the final draft is approved, we 
don't see it again.  Then it goes to the printer who has to type-set it 
or whatever they do these days and again this is where errors can creep 
in.  I have been told (so pls correct me if I am wrong) that many of the

American codes or standards go thru this vetting process in house so 
that they don't have the equivalent CSA vetting.
The type-setters, or whoever, have a problem with many of the formulas 
and then many of the printing companies that used to do this work have 
disappeared as technology made them redundant or behind the times. Most 
of this is anecdotal but came from a reliable source who has had to get 
a standard published.
And this leads me to a little anecdote. The class of 1984 of the Royal 
Military College(my school) wanted to get commemorative pewter beer mugs

made for their graduation.  The college motto is "Truth, Duty, Valour" 
and and this was to be printed on the mugs along with the college coat 
of arms.  The low bidder was out of Michigan and the graphic was sent to

the firm for production.
Approximately 200 mugs arrived with "Truth, Duty, Valor" which the 
company had to replace free of charge.
Gary

Garner, Robert wrote:
>
> I am pleased to reply that following my complaint to ICC, from whom I
> purchased ACI 318-08, I have been contacted directly by ACI, who has 
> agreed to send me a complimentary copy of the second edition.  I wish 
> to publicly thank ACI for this service.  This represents what I expect

> and appreciate from our code societies.
>
>  
>
> I do, however, remain intolerant of errata and I recommend that our
> professional societies, SEA, SEAOC, etc. take the position that codes 
> are incredibly important and must be treated as documents that must 
> not contain errors.  I acknowledge human imperfection but I accept no 
> less than maximum effort.  Of myself, and of those calling themselves 
> professionals.
>
>  
>
> I'm nearing retirement, and I'm definitely at the age of codgerhood.
> I may consider assisting in code writing efforts, but I would be 
> demanding as hell!
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Thank you for listening.
>
>  
>
> Robert Garner, S.E.
>
>  
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Garner, Robert [mailto:rgarner(--nospam--at)moffattnichol.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:35 AM
> *To:* seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> *Subject:* Bad Codes
>
>  
>
> I just purchased the ACI 318-08 Concrete Code.  My wife called me at
> work and said I had a package waiting for me.  I love getting 
> packages.  I knew it was the new Concrete Code because I had just 
> ordered it.  So I looked forward to coming home to break into that 
> book and see the progress our "cement buddies" had in making the Code 
> a much improved document, especially our own dear Appendix D, which 
> has succeeded in creating a whole new structural discipline of 
> engineers that specialize exclusively in the design of CONCRETE 
> ANCHORS (caps mine to honor a subject that ACI has seen fit to make as

> sophisticated as the wind provisions of ASCE.)  What was the first
> thing I found in the package?  Placed on top of the Code book so that 
> it stood out proudly as if claiming, "Look at me!  I am very 
> Important!"  Yep, Code Errata!  A brand new code that isn't even 
> accepted by code bodies and hasn't even been purchased by most 
> practicing engineers, and there are four pages of ERRORS, whoops, 
> excuse me, Errata.  Can't anybody get a code book published without 
> errors?  Errata?  B.S., these are errors.  I don't care if they are 
> the publishers' proof reader's errors or just stupidity in writing 
> these books.  When I do structural calculations, I don't do this kind 
> of careless work.  I submit my calcs to the City then I routinely 
> follow up with errata?  I don't think so.  Everyone makes mistakes but

> the codes make them routinely and treat them as if they are just
> another facet of the code. 
>
>  
>
> As a Structural Engineer licensed in the four western states, I find
> the constant necessity of correcting codes with constant errata 
> totally unacceptable.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Robert Garner, S.E.
>
>  
>
> R. Garner
>
> Moffatt & Nichol
>
> Tel.:  (619) 220-6050
>
> Fax.: (619) 220-6055
>
> e-mail: rgarner(--nospam--at)moffattnichol.com <mailto:rgarner(--nospam--at)moffattnichol.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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 

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