Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Food for thought

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
My comments below..
Bill Allen
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Cain, S.E. <bcain(--nospam--at)>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at) <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Food for thought

>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.)
So, trying to stay on track for a moment with my original point, if these two "key points" are so "good", then why aren't they being applied to all structures (particularly in zone 4)?

>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?").
With all due respect, I realize I have only submitted a couple of thousand projects to plan check, but the only ones requiring the CBC have been schools, hospitals and the one jail project I worked on. In theory you may be correct, but I think you may be the only person who knows it. In fact, my original comments were only referring to the "two key points" stated above.
>OAKLAND, ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
>*   Association of California (SEAOC) email server. To
>*   subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to
>*   admin(--nospam--at) and in the body of the message type
>*   "join seaoc" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email
>*   to admin(--nospam--at) and in the body of the message
>*   type "leave seaoc" (no quotes). For questions, send
>*   email to seaoc-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you
>*   send to the list is public domain and may be reposted
>*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
>*   site at:
>******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********