Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Fwd: Re: Opinions for List -power from the community

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
BCASE1356(--nospam--at) wrote:
> In a message dated 97-03-31 02:33:07 EST, you write:
> << Subj:        Opinions for List -power from the community
>  Date:  97-03-31 02:33:07 EST
>  From:  wish(--nospam--at) (Dennis S. Wish PE)
>  Reply-to:      seaoc(--nospam--at)
>  To:    seaoc(--nospam--at) ('seaoc(--nospam--at)')
>  File:  opinions.dat (4095 bytes)
>  DL Time (28800 bps): < 1 minute
>  Historically, I haven't placed too much of my confidence upon the
> powers-to-be in SEA to accomplish much at code level based upon the
> of the community. Single Family Residential construction has not (at least
> until Northridge) been considered important enough to even add experience
> points for CE's planning to take the SE exam. Now due to the cost of
> incurred by Northridge and Loma Prieta, the Insurance lobbyist have forced
> the building industry to perk up an ear and take attention to the quality
> residential construction.

Dennis, could you please elaborate a little about this comment. I am
familiar with some kinds of damaged to residential construction during
these events but am unaware of the lobbying efforts of insurance

>  As Bill Allen suggested, if enough voices can be represented, then a
> should be drafted to the SEAOC board to urge action to improve legislation
> for residential construction. Conventional framing per the UBC is
> dangerous in the hands of a non-professional.
>  I have been an advocate for the removal of the conventional framing
> of the code for the last four years or so. Unfortunately, my voice and
> that support this position have fallen on deaf ears.

I think potentially this is a two edged sword issue. I agree that the
conventional construction provisions can be misinterpreted, yet I am
also aware of builders and architects using these sections with
resulting "overdesign", curiously enough.

>  As editor of SEAOC online, I have added threads of our Listservice
> discussion as a regular feature in the quarterly newsletter. Issues such as
> this are reprinted for two purposes. First, to urge engineers who are not
> connected to join our discussions by showing the community the level of
> professional discussions and peer assistance that we share with each other.
> Second, to let the SEAOC board (as well as other SEA chapters that
> to Online [almost 7,000 readers]) know what we are discussing and hope that
> they take in interest as to what is occurring  "around" the community
> than just within it.
>  If this turns out not to be sufficient, (possibly many of the board
> are not computer literate enough to utilize an email or isp account) then I
> urge each of you to cut and paste these threads into individual letters.
> them to your local SEA chapter and demand that committees be formed to
> address these issues.
>  Bill is absolutely correct. There is power in numbers and if we can not
> the attention of the SEAOC board and bring them to the list, then we need
> bring the list to the board.
>  Sincerely,
>  Dennis S. Wish PE
>   >>
> Dennis,
> I would suggest that these letters be addressed to other structural
> engineering associations in addition to SEAOC (SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOCC,
> SEAOSD), such as SEA of Washington, SEA of Hawaii,  SEA of Nevada, etc.
> they often have opinions on proposed code changes to the UBC.  

(etc.) = SEA of Utah also. 

>Without the
> support of these and other structural engineering organizations, it is very
> difficult to get code changes approved at the annual ICBO meeting. Trying
> make code changes in the UBC becomes very political because of all the
> players involved as I know you are aware of.
> Once code changes are adopted by the UBC, then SEAOC may have a better
> to influence adoption of such changes by the local building juridictions in
> California.
> Respectfully,
> Michael Cochran
I realize that there may be "formal" communication between these various
engineering societies, yet I see (read) much more interaction on this
list serv than I could wade through in a year! I am very much in favor
of electronic bulletin board communication of issues and yet feel the
persons participating represent a small cross section of our profession.
Can this be hammered out also? In other words, if you think this is a
valuable service, how would (can) you encourage involvement. Not only by
lurkers, but almost more importantly by those persons with volumes of
information about issues who may be intimidated by this back box
communication stuff.

Barry H. Welliver

--- Internet Message Header Follows ---
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA09904
	for <rlewis(--nospam--at)>; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:36:07 -0600 (CST)
Received: from by (NTList 3.02.10) id
ta014631; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 06:32:45 -0800
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by (8.6.9/8.6.9) id OAA44105 for
<seaoc(--nospam--at)>; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 14:29:50 GMT
Received: from by via smap (V1.3mjr)
	id smaKgwDmb; Mon Mar 31 14:29:24 1997
Message-ID: <333FAE8C.79AE(--nospam--at)>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 07:31:08 -0500
From: "Barry H. Welliver" <wellive(--nospam--at)>
Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Opinions for List -power from the community
References: <970331031030_955054580(--nospam--at)>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Error-To: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
X-Loop: seaoc(--nospam--at)
X-Info: [SEAOC]
Owner: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
X-POP3-Rcpt: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
X-Sender: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)
Precedence: list
X-ListMember: rlewis(--nospam--at) [seaoc(--nospam--at)]


Richard Lewis, P.E.
Missionary TECH Team

The service mission like-minded Christian organizations
may turn to for technical assistance and know-how.