cannot be rearranged to calculate desired values, so have to use trial and
error. Where as with the simpler rules of thumb can get to the desired
result a lot faster.
Codes are for assessment, and we study mathematics to understand
relationships between critical characteristics of the system, not stuff
numbers in formulae and calculate point-values. So if understand the
relationships, there is not always a need to re-do calculations in the terms
of the code of practice. Codes are guidelines.
And software tends to waste paper printing out, a great deal that is not
necessary. Calculations are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. I
think there is some need to rationalise what all the paper is being churned
out for. Especially given that in many instances, dealing with wrong
characteritics and keep producing point-value calculations project by
project to provide a submission to meet a regulation, when really only ever
needed to calculate a maximum/minimum value once in a career. (of course it
creates work, but doesn't add real value to a project)
Regards
Conrad Harrison
B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
Adelaide
South Australia
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********