Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Food for thought[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
- Subject: Re: Food for thought
- From: "Bill Allen, S.E." <billallen(--nospam--at)earthlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:59:33 -0700
To: Bill Cain and Lynn While I omitted several categories of State projects, I believe my point was missed. Even with all of the projects now required to be designed using the CBC, they still represent a small portion of construction in seismic zone 4. My particular experience using the CBC is with DSA submittals (schools and hospitals) as well as one jail project. My point was a hypothetical one whereby all projects (in seismic zone 4) excluding maybe those which qualify for the "Conventional Framing" provisions of the UBC be designed using the CBC and plan checked using the DSA as a model. This includes T&I, SO and, of course, a structural engineer. While this certainly would raise construction costs (a little) and design fees (a lot), it would be interesting to see the results of a study comparing life cycle costs based on the two alternatives: A. Designed and constructed the way it is today. B. Designed and constructed according to DSA procedures. The premise here is that damage would be reduced under alternative B which should more than offset the initial costs over and above alternative A. Regards, Bill Allen -----Original Message----- From: Bill Cain, S.E. <bcain(--nospam--at)ebmud.com> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org> Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 9:32 AM Subject: Re: Food for thought >At 17:51 4/19/98 -0700, Bill Allen wrote: >>The California Building Code is the version of the UBC required for the >>design of schools and hospitals. These projects require, among other things, >>submission to the Division of the State Architect, Testing & Inspection and, >>of course, structural plans and engineering prepared by a licensed S.E. >> >>Now do you see how this would affect supply and demand? >> >>Regards, >>Bill Allen > > >[Bill Cain] Not Exactly. The California Building Code is basically the >Uniform Building Code adopted by the State with modifications. These >modifications vary by which state deparment has jurisdiction. There entire >adoption becomes the building code for each jurisdiction in Cailifornia IF >the local agency does not adopt the UBC within 6 months of when the State >adopts it. Within the 6 month window following State adoption, cities and >counties can adopt their own version including their own amendments and >requirements. Departments such as DSA, HUD, OSPHD, etc. have additional >requirements that amend the basic adoption and these are what many people >refer to as the California Building Code. However, the California Building >Code is actually ALL of what the State adopts including the basic UBC, the >ammendments and the application matrices which describe the special rules >put forth in the amendments (e.g., DSA, HUD, OSHPD, Etc.). > >If the adoption were changed to be the more restrictive versions >promulagted by DSA and OSHPD with all the T&I requirements, safer >structures would result, demand would outstrip supply and the building >owners would get the code changed in the next cycle to allow them to >cheap-cheap their projects. > > >_______________ > >BILL CAIN, SE >OAKLAND, CA >_______________ > > >
- Re: Food for thought
- From: Bill Cain, S.E.
- Re: Food for thought
- Prev by Subject: Re: Food for thought
- Next by Subject: Re: Food for thought
- Previous by thread: Re: Food for thought
- Next by thread: Re: Food for thought