Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Fwd: Interstate SE cooperation

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In some previous posts, it was suggested that cooperation from
structural engineers in states other than California be enlisted to
get needed changes to the conventional construction provisions of the
UBC.  I believe that all structural engineers should work together
to improve the minimum safety requirements of any code.

While the conventional construction provisions of the 94 UBC may not
be perfect, it is a tremendous improvement over the provisions of
the 91 UBC.  At least it defines to some degree what an "unusually
shaped" structure is, something that was previously left up to the
building official.  It needs to be improved, but it cannot be thrown
out.  I think that having *all* structures engineered doesn't
have a snowball's chance in hell of getting accepted.

Now, I would like to point out an area where the cooperation of
SEAOC would be helpful.  In the 1985 UBC, major changes in the
seismic zone map placed most of Arizona in Seismic Zone 1, where
previously it had been in Seismic Zone 2.  Local amendments to the
UBC kept Southern Arizona in Seismic Zone 2, and in the 1991 UBC, we
finally got the UBC seismic zone map to show Southern Arizona in
Seismic Zone 2, albeit, 2A.  Comments that I had received from SEAOC
ranged from, "We just go along with what other states want," to, "We
just act as a draftsman."  Arizona can and has been subjected to
7.0 earthquakes and will in the future --- we just don't have them
as often as California.

One provision that first appeared in the 1985 UBC for Seismic Zone 2
that is without justification and is probably more serious to us than
the conventional construction provisions is the requirement for
masonry construction.  The UBC, and ACI 530, extrapolated the results
of tests of small, lightly loaded, single family, single story
partially reinforced masonry residences and permitted that to be used
for any masonry construction.  SEAOC did see to it that the minimum
reinforcing requirements that were in previous codes remained in
effect for Seismic Zones 3 and 4.  This is, in my opinion, a serious
problem for Arizona and all other Seismic Zone 2 areas.  Cooperation
from SEAOC would be greatly appreciated in getting this problem

This is much too long a post and I apologize.

A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona

--- Internet Message Header Follows ---
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA00457
	for <rlewis(--nospam--at)>; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:51:57 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from by (NTList 3.02.10)
id aa017680; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 11:47:22 -0700
Received: by (8.6.10/5.950515)
	id OAA28298; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 14:44:49 -0400
Date: 12 Apr 97 14:43:55 EDT
From: Roger Turk <73527.1356(--nospam--at)CompuServe.COM>
To: SEAOC <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
Subject: Interstate SE cooperation
Message-ID: <970412184355_73527.1356_CHK59-1(--nospam--at)CompuServe.COM>
Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
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.