Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Repair Standards before the next one....

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In many respects I agree with the statements within this post.  (See my
response to Fred Turner).  The problems encountered with the City of
Oakland ordinance is that there was no evaluation criteria.  Consequently,
no problem has been solved.  What one engineer calls a 25% loss of
capacity, another engineer may say is only 10%.  The evaluation is based
solely on judgement.

As for ATC-43 this is a good start at arriving at a criteria.  From a
personal standpoint I disagree with the criteria that is being developed.
The intial drafts have taken the approach that the reduction in building
stiffness from cracked elements does not enter into the considerations of
how badly a building has been damaged.  Additionally, I believe that the
criteria on crack evaluation is too liberal.  In all fairness to ATC, they
are taking another look at the draft based on many comments they received
from SEAOSC, SEAOC, the SEAOC seismology committee, and other individuals.

The best approah to the problem is to have triggers based on the structural
condition of the building with an evaluation criteria which leads to
consistency from building to building.  Until that approach can be
developed, reviewed, discussed, and adopted, the Appendix Chapter 34
criteria is a good interim standard.

By the way, the repair cost is structural repair only and does not include
nonstructural or finish elements unless they are directly involved with the
structural damage (i.e., need to be removed to reach the structural