Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Code Discussion[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Code Discussion
- From: "Friis, Donna" <FriisDL(--nospam--at)cdm.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:12:04 -0500
Dennis, I know you (and several others) do not have a favorable opinion of the recent building codes and the code writers but I would like to point out that some these engineers spend hundreds/thousands of volunteer hours on our behalf (there are others that the code committee is part of the regular job). If we are not happy with the current progress, why not volunteer some hours to make it better? I would rather spend my time and passion improving the industry/code. Each code committee is made up of a certain percentage of consumers (design engineers from large, medium, and small companies), academia, producers (industry rep's like masonry society) and building code officials. There is just never enough volunteer-hours to do everything on the committee's wish list so things only get done when someone champions that particular item. Depending on how much time we have to spare, let's put our money/time where our mouths are. ;-) Below is a brief list of possibilities and I am sure there are more. 1.Joining one of the code committees - instructions are on the websites and some are listed below for those interested. Time would be at least a few hundred hours per year plus travel so this is for the most dedicated: ASCE7- http://content.seinstitute.org/committees/codes.html IBC codes- www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes ACI- http://www.concrete.org/COMMITTEES/COM_JOIN.asp State building code- most adopt IBC with their own amendments and have their own stru committee to review/accept and make changes NCSEA- http://ncsea.com/directory.aspx?GroupID=6 2.Coming up with code language (or a reasonable attempt) to help simply or improve the code and send to the chair of the respective committee. Time could be anywhere from a few hours to a few hundred. Another similar option would be to submit during public review period for each code but I think the earlier in the code cycle the better chance of getting it accepted into the code. 3. Emailing the committee chair/member and volunteering to proof some new design methodology (say a simplified procedure) and compare it to the current code offering results and feedback. This would be a good way to contribute for someone, who is more limited on their volunteer hours. With regard to the time cycle, I know ASCE 7 recently went to a 5 year code cycle, which I personally feel was a step in the right direction. Dennis, I know that you have personally spent a huge number of hours volunteering to time and passion with SEAINT/SEA. I personally appreciate what you have given of yourself through SEAINT. So Toda raba! ("thank you very much" in your Hebrew tongue). Over the past decade I have benefited from your wisdom and your willingness to share your knowledge..and I am in no way saying any one person/committee/organization is anywhere near perfect. I have felt your frustration through your posts. If perhaps, say, this time next year, you still feel the same way about the specific code committee/organization's lack of appreciation of your efforts, maybe try another one. I am sure there is one out there that is the perfect fit and would be extremely grateful for your efforts. You are a talented engineer and leader. ;-) Respectfully, Donna (who is attempting to do her small part to make the codes better as an assoc committee member.) _____________________________________ Donna Friis, P.E. Structural Engineer CDM 2301 Maitland Center Parkway, Ste 300 Maitland, FL 32751 Tel: (407) 660-6415, Fax: (407) 660-1243 mailto:FRIISDL(--nospam--at)CDM.COM www.cdm.com _____________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- 17 Message:0017 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- From: "Dennis Wish" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)verizon.net> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org> Subject: If so many agree, why remain apathetic - Code Discussion This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00AC_01C971BB.36648470 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I had not checked my e-mail in a few days (at least the seaint.org list). I suppose that I have almost lost interest in my profession due to the seeming attacks against small practitioners in the form of "improve the code and damn construction quality" ideology of the professional code committees. I certainly did not expect near 100% agreement with me on my last rant. So this leads me to my next question; If you believe that the code creation process is flawed or that that the professional associates and supporting industries are maintaining a code publication schedule that results only in a market for those who wish to sell books or hold seminars to explain in the most trivial means a complicated method, then why do you continue to support the profession rather than take a proactive if not anarchistic approach to changing our profession (now for a deep breath). Seriously, I stood on principle after the debacle in 2000 over the codification of the 97 UBC along with the internal censorship of the SEAINT Online paper publication I wrote and SEAOSC distributed in 9 states by simply resigning from SEA? Organizations such as this are, in my best days, very worthwhile when they represent their members and serve to improve the quality of construction rather than finding a new and convoluted means to solve the same problems we were doing in one line calculations for years. Seriously, as practitioners we made mistakes. For years we designed plywood shear walls based on an aspect ratio of height to width rather than addressing actual deflection and it seems that we have inordinately paid the price many times over while the code creative committees of our profession continually put out "drek" (junk for those of you not of the Jewish faith) creating a vacuum for prescriptive codes to take over as most of us lost in the rhetoric lose design work on residential and low-rise wood framed structures. These structures represent almost 90% of all buildings erected in the United States and are the source of income for most sole proprietorships or small offices. Yes, we diversify and write insurance reports, act as expert witnesses, repair damaged and non-compliant buildings, but while the housing industry is in a downward spiral why are we not becoming more active as an independent group to force the code creation process back on track? Years ago I believed the chasm between Architects / NAHB and Engineers was so wide that the differences could not be resolved politically. There is a need for prescriptive design, but as we learn more about wind and seismic, it seems the prescriptive methods won't cut it - yet this is what is allowed in the IRC and what we must compete with in the layperson world of our clients and hungry developers. This list (which I lay claim to creating with Shafat Qazi and the support of SEAOSC) has close to 15,000 members worldwide and certainly the power in dues paid to the associations to make a difference. If the money dries up so does the work of the committees. Let me make this perfectly clear. I am not in favor of bringing SEA or ASCE or any other group down, I am in favor of reminding them forcefully how things were done before the computer age when SEA in California was still small and growing and ethics allowed SEA to place their members first. Now the members are nothing more than a source of revenue to pay for dues, seminars, publications etc. In 2000+ when we argued the 97 code, we discovered that this list was able to hit an end of the road block wall that it could not pass. The list is a bitching post where members can work off frustration. We do serve the needs of peer-to-peer help and this is a value we should not discount, but my goal to the creation of the list was to allow for all members to be able to speak and be heard as a serious voice. This is not happening and possibly won't. After the SEAOSC board hears of this message, I may be history - but at least it is off my chest. If the code is imperfect we have an ethical obligation to change our profession rather than leave it to the few Sheppard's leading the lambs to slaughter. If you are interested, write me privately and I will start an online petition which can be our voice by those not on the list who still have a voice in SEA. Next year, Michael Cochran, SE takes over as president of SEAoSC and as a former member I look forward to this change. Not only do I highly respect Michael as a friend and professional peer, but the current board president leaves much to be desired by means of compromise or working with the members for meaningful change. I believe Michael is more empathetic to the needs of the members as was his father Brian Cochran when I was just a young new active member of various committees. Don't give in - become an active voice in change and it may just spread into an international effort. Sincerely, Dennis S. Wish Dennis S. Wish, PE California Professional Engineer (C-41250) Structural Engineering 54625 Avenida Bermudas La Quinta, CA. 92253 Phone: 760.564.0884 (phone, fax and messages) dennis.wish(--nospam--at)verizon.net ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- Prev by Subject: re: Citi Corps
- Next by Subject: Codes comparison
- Previous by thread: If so many agree, why remain apathetic - Code Discussion
- Next by thread: Is it just me?