Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Performance Objectives[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: Re: Performance Objectives
- From: Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)fluordaniel.com
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 6:34:00 -0500
What the authors write sounds a lot like the SEAOC Vision 2000 project. For a quick summary, take a look at Appendix B of your 1996 SEAOC Blue Book. The SEAOC Seismology Committee (Code Writers) have developed a framework to incorporate different levels of performance. FEMA also has sponsored work in this area. FEMA 283 (Free from FEMA) is entitled "Performance Based Seismic Design Of Buildings" and was prepared with project participation by a large number of the SEAOC membership. Instead of Code Levels "A", "B", and "C", we should think in terms of established and defined performance levels such as "Fully operational, Operational, Life Safe, and Near Collapse. The hard work will be writing the actual code language to achieve the specified / desired performance level. There's still a lot of work to do. Rick Drake, SE Fluor Daniel _______________________________________________ Per Bruce Resnick: > Perhaps we could codify structures into A, B, and C levels. > "C" level would be code minimum as it exists now. Levels "A" > and "B" could represent code increases in lateral design (say > 25% or 50% more seismic), and vertical design (higher live > load and/or deflection criteria). The advantage to codifying > this is that the developer/builder/owner could then legitimately > increase the value of the property by saying it was built to > code level "A" or "B" and there would be permits to prove it. > Maybe this would also increase the public awareness as to what > people are buying. _______________________________________________________ Per SHERMANWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com I think such classifications would be great, if we could get the code writers to do it. The bare minimums could be the default, but a client could require a higher classification by contract and "essential" facilities could be code required to meet a higher classification. I've been thinking along similar lines that structures should be classified according to quality requirements for design. Higher classification levels of structures should have a higher specified level of quality control (such as required independent checking of design calculations, independent peer review, documentation of interdiscipline cross-checking, etc). I've been thinking that this should be covered in standard contracts for engineering services. The purchaser should have the choice of specifying increased levels of quality control if willing to spend a little more money for design. Currently, I have great difficulty with the lack of definition of quality requirements in current standard engineering contracts. The EJCDC standard contract documents only require conformance to the "Standard of Care". This is a very loose term and is subject to interpretation. Unfortunately, I've seen significant variation in the standard of care in the industry I work in and clients do not seem to be given the means to directly control the standard of care. The engineering industry needs to work on this. (I've suggested to a couple of members of ACEC that this be addressed.) Where the purchaser of engineering services must make choices, some items may be better addressed in the contract for services rather than in building codes.
- Prev by Subject: Re: Performance Objectives
- Next by Subject: Re: Performance Objectives
- Previous by thread: Re: Performance Objectives
- Next by thread: Virus -Reply