Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

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

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

I have no disagreement with what you are saying.  I am not a lover of a
cost based trigger (even though that is what I developed).  I also agree
that there can be some mis-interpretation in relation to what costs to use
for the repair.

However, it has been a fairly successful interim standard for Northridge.
Far and away the best approach to determining how badly a building is
damaged is to look at a loss of capacity.  I began work on my repair code
prior to the occurrence of Northridge.  I did not move my code forward as a
possibility because it was not finished.  When the final ATC-43 document is
complete, I intend to look again at my criteria and that of ATC-43.  I was
under the impression that revisions to ATC-43 were going to be made based
on a letter from ATC to James Lai.

My purpose in mentioning the Appendix Chapter 34 provisions which I
developed and got through ICBO was to let people know that the provisions
exist.  In no way am I saying that a cost-based trigger is preferable to a
capacity based trigger.

The overall point of it all is that after next January local government
needs to seriously look at some type of a repair standard.  If they do not,
their public facilities will simply be restored to their "pre-event
condition."  This leaves the impression that the building has been repaired
and is now okay.  Certainly not the impression we wish to leave.

We have a good start with the repair code I developed (with the assistance
of Dr. Sassi) and ATC-43.  Hopefully, between the two documents we can come
up with something which has a degree of consensus agreement.