I have to agree with the responses who believe that a "standard" should be
held to a higher QA process than a one-off project related document. An
error in a construction document produces one error. An error in a standard
produces one error for every time that error is referenced. That's why we
(should) charge more when we produce a document that is going to be used
multiple times (think tract or modular housing). An error on these documents
is more sever than an error on a set of plans for a single custom home.
Of course, no matter how sophisticated the QA process becomes, there will
still be errors. After all, it's created by humans. I do think the
correction process could be better. After all, how does one find out that
there are errata? The only way I found out is by this list. I think it would
be better if the document was published as loose leaf, a subscription card
included so that one can get periodic updates.
My two cents. Spend it as you wish.
T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
ALLEN DESIGNS
Consulting Structural Engineers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell@engin.umich.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 7:29 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05 Errors
>
> And I will ask again...are YOUR documents that YOU produce always 100%
> accurate? Keep in mind that YOUR documents (drawings and specs) are also
> all "legal documents"...they are part of a contract that a
> contractor/builder are legally obligated to follow. Do you put out
> "errata" (i.e. revised drawings)?
>
> I am not saying that catching the errors in the codes is not
> important...it is. But, all those people tossing stones should remember
> that they are not perfect either and have more than likely made mistakes
> on things that they produce as well.
>
> I have NEVER come across a perfect set of contract documents, including my
> own. So, unless you can say that you ALWAYS produce 100% accurate
> contract documents, then you should be careful about what you say about
> others. Something about living in glass houses while throwing rocks comes
> to mind...
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 ndz28@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Time for everyone to wake up.
> >
> > The 2% error rate does not seem that high, but what was missed in that
> analysis, is that if just one formula is completely off, your entire
> design can be 100% off. That is what you have to keep in mind.
> >
> > What one has to consider is that this is a legal document. When we as
> engineers follow this 'technical publication', we become 'legally'
> responsible for mistakes that are out of our control. Now can someone
> tell me for sure that all the errors have been picked up? Will a new
> errata be published 3 months from now, 2 months after I completed a new
> project? Am I safe  in basing my calculations on a publication that is
> so full of error?Â
> >
> > Keep in mind that the same problems were encountered with the '97 UBC
> and the 3 volumes of the Seismic manuals, and it took a couple of years to
> iron thing out. That's why there is no excuse for the sloppy proofing
> this time around!
> >
> > There has to be more proof reading, and if more time is needed, than so
> be it. Where is the rush? Are buildings collapsing all around us? Or is
> this a money making venture?Â
> >
> > More mistakes will be made by practicing engineers by this constant code
> changes, than if the existing code is just left in place for a while
> longer.
> >
> > I don't want to get personal with anyone, I just have to vent.
> >
> >
> > Andrew Vidikan, PE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Larry Hauer <lrhauer@hotmail.com>
> > To: seaint@seaint.org
> > Sent: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 2:33 pm
> > Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05 Errors
> >
> >
> > Yes, no set of construction documents is 100% error free and no
> technical publication is 100% error free, but 24 pages of errata sounds
> excessive. Most constr. docs errors are typos inwhich we can interpret the
> meaning, (ie. "wood beam" spelled "wood bem." But a mistake in a formula
> in a technical publication can have disasterous results, (i.e. a "greater
> than" sign reversed to "less than"). From the postings, it sounds like
> ASCE dropped the ball at our expense.Â
> > Â
> > Larry Hauer S.E.Â
> > Â
> > >From: "Mark E. Deardorff" <mdeardorff@burkett-wong.com>Â
> > >Reply-To: <seaint@seaint.org>Â
> > >To: <seaint@seaint.org>Â
> > >Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05 ErrorsÂ
> > >Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:27:12 -0700Â
> > >Â
> > >Not as bad as AISC's goof on the Seismic Design Manual. It was too
> >extensiveÂ
> > >to treat with errata.Â
> > >Â
> > >Mark E. Deardorff, S.E.Â
> > >Structural EngineerÂ
> > > <http://www.burkett-wong.com/> Burkett & Wong EngineersÂ
> > >3434 4th AveÂ
> > >San Diego, CA 92103Â
> > >P 619.299.5550Â
> > >F 619.299.9934Â
> > >mdeardorff@burkett-wong.comÂ
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > > _____Â
> > >Â
> > >From: Garner, Robert [mailto:rgarner@moffattnichol.com]Â
> > >Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:15 PMÂ
> > >To: seaint@seaint.orgÂ
> > >Subject: ASCE 7-05 ErrorsÂ
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > >Just a tip that the latest errata for ASCE 7-05 is available fromÂ
> > >SEInstitute.org All twenty four pages! In addition, S.K. Ghosh
> >publishedÂ
> > >some ASCE 7 Seismic Provisions Errata in the April issue of
> StructuralÂ
> > >Engineer. I don't know if Ghosh's errata was picked up by SEInstitute
> orÂ
> > >not.Â
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > >These errata are so extensive that I think you can ignore buying ASCE
> 7-05Â
> > >and just download the errata for free.Â
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > >I think I'm just going to go ahead and do really sloppy engineering on
> myÂ
> > >next project - I can always issue errata, right?Â
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > >Bob Garner, S.E.Â
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > >R. GarnerÂ
> > >Â
> > >Moffatt & NicholÂ
> > >Â
> > >Tel.: (619) 220-6050Â
> > >Â
> > >Fax.: (619) 220-6055Â
> > >Â
> > >e-mail: rgarner@moffattnichol.comÂ
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > >The information contained in the e-Mail, including any accompanyingÂ
> > >documents or attachments, is from Moffatt & Nichol and is intended only
> forÂ
> > >the use of the individual or entity named above, and is privileged
> andÂ
> > >confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that
> anyÂ
> > >disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents
> ofÂ
> > >this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in
> error,Â
> > >please notify us.Â
> > >Â
> > >Â
> > Â
> > _________________________________________________________________Â
> > PC Magazine’s 2007 editors’ choice for best Web mailâ€"award-winning
> Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-
> us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507Â
> > Â
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***Â
> > * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.aspÂ
> > * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of
> Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or
> UnSubscribe, please go to:Â
> > *Â
> > * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.aspÂ
> > *Â
> > * Questions to seaint-ad@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 *******
> ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at AOL.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@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@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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********