Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Repair Standards before the next one....-Reply[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: Re: Repair Standards before the next one....-Reply
- From: Brian Kehoe <BEK(--nospam--at)wje.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:49:47 -0600
Richard Ranous/OES(--nospam--at)oes.ca.gov wrote: >>>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.<<< I will agree that any criteria is subjective and based on judgement. Oakland's ordinance has certainly resulted in confusion, but it provides a more rational basis than a cost basis. Whose judgement do we trust more, the engineers calculating capacities or contractors, et al who estimate costs? >>>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.<<< I am happy that you agree that ATC 43 is a good start. As a member of the panel that developed ATC 43, I am also aware that you are not in agreement with some of the requirements. To date however, I am not aware of any technical inadequacies with any of the provisions put forth by SEAOSC, SEAOC, the seismology committee, or others. I am also not aware of any changes being made to the technical provisions of the document based on comments by those groups mentioned previously. >>>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.<<< The time to start developing a structural evaluation approach is now. The Appendix Chapter 34 needs some improvements before it should be even be considered an interim standard. If you would like, I could discuss with you some of the problems and some suggestions to improve this criteria. >>>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 damage).<<< While this may be your interpretation of the provisions, the wording could be interpreted differently. The "value of repairs required to restore the structural members to their pre-event condition" can and has been misinterpreted to include other costs. The determination of what is required to restore a structural element to its "pre-event condition" has also resulted in considerable debate, as you may be aware. ---------------> Brian Kehoe bek(--nospam--at)wje.com
- Prev by Subject: Re: Repair Standards before the next one.... -Reply
- Next by Subject: Re: Repair Standards before the next one....-Reply
- Previous by thread: Re: Repair Standards before the next one....
- Next by thread: Re: Repair Standards before the next one....-Reply