Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Aluminum design for Canada

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Not much. Did it just to prove (to me) I could. 
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: ad026 rpransom <ad026(--nospam--at)rpransom.ca>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 00:09:20 
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: Re: Aluminum design for Canada

Thor,
w.r.t. substitutions of standards, you are right that the legislated
requirements do not prevent you from using alternate and rational means to
design. I think, as a profession, we don't adequately emphasize that written
standards are only as good as the idealized circumstances that they describe
and/or the practitioner applying them. If you understand the basis and
limitations of the formalized design standards then it is possible to
engineer well without them and never have to be subjected to an "expert"
review. Practice well and have no fear.

If you do follow the letter of the standard, be wary about mixing different
versions of codes with standards not explicitly referenced. The NRC and
standards committees go to great lengths to ensure that variations are
consistent with each coordinated code publication (e.g. the referenced
standards MUST be published prior to the code publication). If you are in a
province still using the NBCC 05 model (e.g. BC, AB, ON, QC), don't try to
to apply S16-09 explicitly (also, be wary of the edit errors in the S16
seismic section - they did catch some with the recent errata).

PS. Curious about the mileage that you get with MIStructE.

Regards
Paul Ransom, P.Eng.


> From: "Thor Tandy" <vicpeng(--nospam--at)telus.net>

> codes/standards are apparently objective/performance-based, my understanding
> is that we have a duty to ensure that the results of another code/standard
> do not fall below (the intent/prescription of) the local code/standard.
> I.e. deemed/calculated "equivalency". It doesn't, per se, make it wrong to
> use another code/standard but in the event an "expert witness" finds the

> I would suggest that Gary's caution applies to all codes/standards ...
> 
> FWIW, a similar situation may arise (jury still out, I think) when a
> designer may decide to use a later (and judged, better) standard/code than
> that referenced in the "current legal code/standard" ...

> Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, C.Eng, Struct.Eng, MIStructE
> Victoria, BC, V8T 1Z1
> Email: vicpeng(--nospam--at)telus.net
> Please consider the environment before printing out this e-mail


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿý?vX¬´Pjßá¶Úÿÿü0Ãûj)íþ?àþX¬·ñ@Cö¬§ÿÓ?+?¨¥Á«,z{m£*.¾&?¶»?¶êÚ?Ià?w?®ÏÀ²Ê?«b¢zJ?­?êç	©b~?ç?¯Ò?û®÷«ý:ÿ²æìr¸?{ùè}çÿ¢µ'Jæìr¸?{úey«??hÿÿá¶Úÿÿü0Ãûj)íþ?àþÇ??+-×ö¬§ÿйë-??ì¶?j)íý§ÿ±æ¢?ßè®Ñzg¦mêÿj|??¨¥Ê?ÿ±éݶ?azX¬¶+)¹¹bqÚ&j)Ú?Ù?É·«{úh²×?ÿ­??­Ê?«¥êæ?Ë"¢ÌjG¬º·²¢ëâ²+hº¼oû"µæ­þm§ÿÿÃÿ±æ¢?ßè®ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ