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 Cain, S.E." <bcain(--nospam--at)ebmud.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:46:48 -0700
At 12:59 4/20/98 -0700, Bill Allen wrote: >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. [Bill Cain] The key points are: 1) "planned checked using the DSA model"; and 2) "...includes T&I, SO and, of course, a structural engineer". These two elements alone would provide a substantial increase in construction quality and seismic performance. One only needs to look at the performance of post-1933 schools for proof (although the early Field Act structures (1933-37 where the lateral force requirement was only 0.04(DL + LL/2), will probably not perform too well.) ALL STRUCTURES in California (zone 4 or otherwise), except those jurisdictions adopting a variant of the UBC (San Francisco, LA, etc.), even including "conventional light frame construction" are currently THEORETICALLY required to be "designed" and constructed under the CBC. The main deficiency is ENFORCEMENT and arguably the inclusion of conventional construction in the code (although I can just hear Frank Lew saying "where are the bodies?"). Regards, _______________ BILL CAIN, SE OAKLAND, CA _______________
- Re: Food for thought
- From: Bill Allen, 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