Review Category : Letters to the Editor

The engineering associations that represent the structural engineering profession have made it clear it is time to take action to “reflect the diversity of the communities we serve,” as Emily Guglielmo so eloquently described in her August 2020 STRUCTURE article, United in Action.  And if we act smartly, we can not only transform how we operate and manage our profession, but we can help ensure its continued ability to attract motivated and talented young engineers, including minority engineers, into the fold.
Read More →
Mr. Mladjov’s reflections on the AASHTO LRFD Code are not consistent with the basic philosophy and foundation of the modern AASHTO Code. Load and Resistance factors are not safety factors. His translation of load and resistance factors to the abandoned safety factor concept is a throwback to older codes – codes that were shown to produce highly variable reliability that resulted alternatively in wasteful and questionable designs.
Read More →
This article was a disappointing and unfortunate picture of the construction industry. It discusses projects riddled with strained relationships, unprofessional work practices, and unethical conduct. It describes the typical project manual as a bloated compilation of mostly irrelevant requirements prepared by lazy and careless design professionals. Instead of being professionals, our contractor friends cut corners and knowingly present inaccurate bids with the hopes of gaining a competitive advantage. Fortunately, this doesn’t describe the vast majority of construction and design professionals.

In addition, the conclusion falls short of the mark. There is no supporting evidence that universal specifications are less bloated, less prone to inaccuracies, or lead to fewer construction issues. The conclusion attempts only to treat symptoms, not address the problems.

The root of many of these problems is lack of effective communication. Instead of compromising our standards, we should embrace the opportunity to add value to our projects. We should take an active role communicating with clients, design professionals, and contractors. We should provide information that is clear, correct, complete, and concise. Like every industry, we face challenges but, to improve our industry, we need to improve ourselves.

Mitchell Taylor, P.E., S.E.
North Carolina

Author’s Response

Mitchell,

While I certainly do not want to speak for the entire construction industry, I have personally experienced this picture of the industry on numerous occasions. Furthermore, this article did not only build upon my personal experiences but also involved interviewing other professionals in the industry on both the construction and design sides.

I would look forward to speaking with you to discuss your experiences. It is possible that there are differences in industry practice depending on the region or sector (small commercial, large commercial, higher education, industrial, marine, etc.).

Your letter describes ineffective communication between clients, designers, and contractors as the root of many problems. In the article, I did state, “Ideally, the AHJ’s would engage local developers, contractors, architects, and engineers in the creation and maintenance process so the specs would reflect best practices in the region.” Yes, this communication will still need to take place on a project-by-project basis, but I believe everyone would benefit from beginning with a tailor made specification that reflects the best practices in the region.

Finally, you end with “We should provide information that is clear, correct, complete, and concise. Like every industry, we face challenges but, to improve our industry, we need to improve ourselves.” I agree with this statement; however, why not also improve the tools/processes that we have at our disposal. For example, penmanship used to be an essential skill that is largely irrelevant now due to the advent of computers. Should we still be teaching elementary school students how to properly write in cursive or should we instead focus on typing which is much quicker and more efficient. Implementing universal specifications won’t be nearly as revolutionary as the advent of computers, but I believe it can be a quicker and more efficient than current practice.

Drew Dudley, P.E.

Read More →
We thank the authors for compiling the pitfalls and drawbacks involved with sourcing foreign steel materials and fabrication. We especially note the inherent benefit gained by applying AISC technical documents and AISC Certification to domestically produced steel and domestic fabrication of structural steel. Application of AISC documents and Certification in this manner has a proven track record of safe, efficient and cost-effective project performance.

A case in point: much has been written comparing performance on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge project in California, which experienced both budget and schedule challenges, with performance on the Tappan Zee project in New York, which beat both the project budget and the project schedule. The Tappan Zee project was domestically sourced and the Bay Bridge was not.

We can add one more relevant consideration to the factors noted in your article: sustainability. The construction literature indicates that the carbon footprint of foreign fabricated steel material can be as much as three times the carbon footprint of domestic fabricated steel material.
So, choosing domestic steel materials and domestic fabrication, combined with application of the AISC technical documents and AISC Certification, not only addresses the challenges pointed out in your article, it also is more sustainable.

Charles J. Carter, S.E., P.E., Ph.D.
President
American Institute of Steel Construction

AISC_logo

Read More →
Congratulations on the “harmony” of this edition and the “symphony” of the 4 articles beginning with your ‘Narrative and Engineering’, continuing with Ramon Gilsane’s ‘Understanding Seismic Design through a Musical Analogy’, then ‘Reflections on the 2014 South Napa Earthquake’ by Jon A. Dal Pino and finally by the thoughtful ‘Acceptable Collapse ‘ by Reid Zimmerman.
Read More →
The March 2014 Structural Forum column baffled me.  The author has not documented the basis of his assertion that “sustainable” buildings are only one percent better than “standard” buildings, nor did he explain why he “ignored the energy used to run buildings” even though, of the total energy used to construct and maintain a building over its lifetime, operation typically accounts for about half.
Read More →
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

As a life-long San Francisco Bay Area resident, I was motivated to write this letter when I read the two articles published in the February 2014 issue regarding the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. I found the articles topical and provocative. However, if we are to improve rush hour traffic through the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley corridor by considering the addition of a second identically configured parallel bridge adjacent to the existing one, I would have liked to have seen some of the more obvious questions/issues addressed:

Read More →
STRUCTURE magazine