Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
[SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Re: Re: [SEAOC] Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings using FEMA 17...[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: edean(--nospam--at)teleport.com
- Subject: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Re: Re: [SEAOC] Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings using FEMA 17...
- From: IteUrsi(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 02:42:48 -0500
- Cc: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
Edwin Dean: You did a favor for some readers of this debate with your discussion of the nature and approach of the 178 document. Folks who are familiar with a subject sometimes forget that others may need a basic orientation to join the debate, which you provided. You raised a question that I want to respond to. >One critical question to ask is: "Is it appropriate to >have an evaluation (screening) document, that represents a >lower standard than is required in a design document?" In the real world, there won't be two standards used in retrofit programs - the "lower" standard will be used for both evaluation and design. Folks who have attended or followed public hearings and the legislative process to adopt mandatory retrofit programs likely have observed the concerns and demands of impacted owners for fairness and a level playing field. The owner of a building that just barely meets 178 criteria for a "good" building gets a pass. The building next door initially may have been almost identical, but over the years received different modifications and maintenance, and now falls just below the 178 criteria. If the second owner is not allowed to just bring the building up to the "good" level, but has to retrofit to sigma + one, he is going to be very unhappy at the "unfairness" of it all. And people on city councils, boards of supervisors, chambers of commerce, building owner associations, and tenant associations whose members will be impacted by rent pass-throughs for the retrofit work, are likely to agree. An engineering case arguably can be made for using a "higher" standard for both evaluation and design, but past experiences have been that it won't be reflected in the ordinances that are finally passed. Acceptable risk is shaped and defined through the political process, and engineers providing input today regrettably are often viewed as just another interest group in the debates (" .. and this ordinance should be called the Engineers' Full Employment Act.. !!" quote of a politician who shall remain unnamed). The results may disappoint us at times, but shouldn't be surprising - there is truth in the observation about the similarity between lawmaking and sausagemaking. Franklin Lew, SE Building Official ...
- Prev by Subject: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Re: Quality of Engineering - Checking
- Next by Subject: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Re: Reroofing (Was: Basic Roof Rafter Analysis Question )
- Previous by thread: [SEAOC] Re: Re: [SEAOC] Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings using FEMA 178, 172 or 273 Provisions.
- Next by thread: [SEAOC] .