Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Fwd: Interstate SE cooperation[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: wai(--nospam--at)euken.com
- Subject: Fwd: Interstate SE cooperation
- From: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org (Richard Lewis)
- Date: 06 Aug 1997 14:59:00 GMT
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 rectified. This is much too long a post and I apologize. A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural) Tucson, Arizona --- Internet Message Header Follows --- Received: from server1.seaoc.org (bqe.com [188.8.131.52]) by host1.texramp.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA00457 for <rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org>; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:51:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hil-img-1.compuserve.com by server1.seaoc.org (NTList 3.02.10) id aa017680; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 11:47:22 -0700 Received: by hil-img-1.compuserve.com (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)seaoc.org> Subject: Interstate SE cooperation Message-ID: <970412184355_73527.1356_CHK59-1(--nospam--at)CompuServe.COM> Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Error-To: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Loop: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Info: [SEAOC] Owner: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-POP3-Rcpt: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Sender: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Precedence: list X-ListMember: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org [seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org] __________________________________________________ Richard Lewis, P.E. Missionary TECH Team rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org The service mission like-minded Christian organizations may turn to for technical assistance and know-how.
- Prev by Subject: Fwd: Internet Explorer 3.0
- Next by Subject: Fwd: Is anchorage of infill masonry, to structure, required in Zone 1.
- Previous by thread: Fwd(2): plywood shear transfer detail
- Next by thread: Fwd: Back in the saddle by public demand