Need a book?
Engineering books recommendations...
Return to index:
RE: duplication of plans
- To: <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
- Subject: RE: duplication of plans
- From: "Dennis S. Wish" <wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:39:34 -0800
With respect to Frank Lew and to Bill Allen who know of my almost
perverse desire to eliminate Conventional Framing conventions from the code -
I'm about to defend it.
Codes don't cause damage to buildings - ignorance
of the code is the culprit. I support the IBC version of Conventional Framing
standards simply because it is much clearer in it's definition and does not
leave as much as the '94 UBC (and earlier) to interpretation.
No code is entirely "loop-hole" free
when it comes to building officials who are not engineers - as happens in rural
area's such as mine. Often compliance to conventional framing is assumed by the
local inspector to be part of the contractors traditional building style and
specific conditions to the code - such as blocking requirements, may often be
misinterpreted. In one example the inspector never questioned the existance of
continuous blocking between the roof framing when it was placed outside of the
plane of the wall.
Therefore the things that degrade construction
quality when a professional is not involved includes personal assumptions that
are incorrect but not clearly covered in the code.
The 2000 IBC section on Conventional Framing is a
tremendous step in the right direction for taking the abiguity out of previous
versions and providing better tools to the building official for stricter
compliance to a prescriptive method.
Finally, to answer Bill Allen's comments about how
many residences that were damaged in Northridge were built based upon
Personally, I would think that this would be
difficult to assess. My experience in Los Angeles County region is that very few
living structures are constructed without the assistance of a qualified engineer
or architect. Also, except for tract developments, few homes are constructed
with plated trusses where there may be a discontinuity between the roof and
shear resisting elements. This is my experience since most building
departments in the area's surrounding Northridge generally hire qualified
engineers for plan check.
However, out side this area, the employment of
staff engineers becomes more uncommon. Between Palm Springs, Cathedral City,
Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells and La Quinta, none provide full time
staff engineers. At best Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage hire outside plan check
consultants and expect them to spend some physical time each week behind the
counter. The other cities send projects out for plan check - Conventional
Framing is given the once over at the counter by non-professionals and if deemed
to be in compliance they are stamped without review. Not a good thing as far as
I am concerned.
Dennis S. Wish PE
Message-----Out of curiosity, how much of
this $372,432,868 was due to damage of structures originally designed under
the provisions of "Conventional Framing Provisions"? I know Frank
Lew is out there some where thinking "where are the bodies" :o)
From: Bill Allen, S.E.
Sent: Friday, March 06, 1998 9:17
Subject: Re: duplication of
I second your concerns Dennis! When SEAOC
began working on the
conventional construction provisions, one of
our biggest oponents was the
Association. Their standard comment was "we don't
level of damage that is being discussed." Additionally, their
comments also included the unnecessary increase in cost reducing the
ability of people to afford housing.
This then adds to the concept that politically you can not require
strengthening or retrofit of single family residences. The net
the Federal government paying $372,432,868 of taxpayer
money to provide
temporary housing to 114,000 households after
I wish I knew the right answer to address the problem once and for