Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Wait just on darn moment here. Again, the point has been missed. With rare
exception, the prescriptive home is not priced any differently than an
engineered product to minimum code compliance. THE COST FOR COMPLIANCE
BECOMES A GREATER PROFIT MARGIN BY THE DEVELOPER / BUILDER.
There are few problems with builders or contractors who are honest about the
limitations of Conventional Framing and you comments are appropriate for
those who sell at a lower price to compensate for the missing equipment and
labor.
THIS IS NOT WHAT I HAVE BEEN SCREAMING ABOUT AND IS DOES NOT REPRESENT THE
MAJORITY OF THOSE HOMES CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE CONVENTIONAL FRAMING
METHODS!!!!!

My experience (and I have seen hundreds of homes in my own neighborhood) is
that the builder will use the provision to put in the least mechanical
components and minimize the amount of labor only to price the home equal to
one with the same plan and the additional mechanical advantages.

IT DOES NOT COST THE OWNER MORE TO BUY A HOME DESIGNED BY PRESCRIPTIVE
MEASURES SUCH AS THOSE (AS JOHN ROSE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION) PUBLISHED BY
AF&PA AND INCLUDED IN THE NEW IRC DRAFT.

Look, this is what gets me angry. Your thinking that the cost of mechanical
devices increases the cost of construction (as would more shear walls). The
facts are that the builders of all homes within a community that are
competing with one another price their homes similarly. The tradeoff is the
builders bottom line. If he omits mechanical connectors, he makes a greater
profit or have room to negotiate a "killer deal" with the perspective buyer.
THIS IS THE ABUSE OF THE CODE.

FINALLY, AS WAS STATED BY ONE OR TWO OTHER ENGINEERS (AND I APOLOGIZE FOR
FORGETTING WHO YOU WERE) - PRESCRIPTIVE MEASURES SHOULD NEVER BE LESS THAN
THE MINIMUM ENGINEERED SOLUTION.

Let's keep this on track and I'll do as I promised and stay out of the
discussion.

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Al Grathwol [mailto:AGrathwol(--nospam--at)BoyleEngineering.com]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 1998 9:31 AM
To: 'seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org'
Subject: RE: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough


The points you make are excellent, especially regarding statistics of
auto accidents, speed limits, etc.
Consider the following caveat emptor to home buyers in the purchase
agreement-

ATTENTION: THIS STRUCTURE WAS NOT DESIGNED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH
ESTABLISHED SEISMIC SAFETY STANDARDS.  FOR AN ADDITIONAL COST OF
$3000.00, THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM  ADDITIONAL ENGINEERED
CONSTRUCTION TO BRING THE STRUCTURE UP TO CURRENT SEISMIC DESIGN
STANDARDS.

CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS

____ I accept the structure as exists.

____ Perform additional engineered construction as required for seismic
safety standards.

The dollar amount is subject to discussion, of course.  Let the buyer be
aware of the situation, and let him decide.

Flame away-



> ----------
> From: 	FLew98[SMTP:FLew98(--nospam--at)aol.com]
> Reply To: 	seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> Sent: 	Friday, May 22, 1998 9:03 AM
> To: 	seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> Subject: 	Re: Architects Doing Engineering -Enough
>
> In a message dated 98-05-22 10:29:35 EDT, shahkarp(--nospam--at)sums.ac.ir write:
>
>
> > ..this sort of mentality is dangerous. Yes I'm also living in a non
> engineered
> > house with no apparent damage, BUT   I've also seen damage done
> > by a full scale earthquake. If any one reads the EEFIT report on the
> > 1990 earthquake in Iran (7.3 - 7.7 on the Richter scale ) will
> clearly get
> > the point. out of a small city only three structures where still
> standing.
> Many
> > of the demolished structures where less than 10 years old and a
> clear
> > majority of the buildings where built with good quality construction
> material.
> > Lack of structural knowledge or poor workmanship on part of the
> builders
> > resulted in a tragedy. The same applies to the Armenian earthquake.
> > The whole concept of earthquake engineering is not to end up as a
> statistic.
>
> I've chased my share of earthquakes, starting with Anchorage, and
> fully
> appreciate the damage that a 7+ event can cause.  But in the U.S., the
> notable
> failures we've observed and seen photos of, even when combined with
> the
> buildings that sustained moderate damage but were not noted in
> publications or
> recorded in statistics, comprise a *small* percentage of the building
> stock.
> The number of wood frame houses that sustained the classic failures of
> cripple
> wall buckling, shifting off foundations, and excessive deflections
> from
> torsional racking, comprise an even smaller percentage of the housing
> stock.
>
> This thread started with a focus on 'conventional framing'
> requirements in the
> model codes in the United States.  I attended presentations on the
> Armenian
> and Iranian earthquakes, as well as read recon reports from EERI, etc.
> The
> impression I have is that the designs, materials, and construction
> practices
> for houses in those regions are quite different from those for
> conventional
> framing in the U.S., and it is not valid to make extrapolations of
> potential
> damage in the U.S. based on those events.
>
> Now, I'll mount the soapbox for a moment.  Compliance with codes and
> regulations incur costs as well as provide benefits to society.  The
> public
> has to perceive a reasonable cost-benefit ratio before there is
> support for a
> law or regulation, or for calls for such laws and regulations.
> Regarding
> seismic performance of wood frame houses, the vast majority of
> citizens:  1)
> have never experienced a major seismic event;  2) have never suffered
> any
> earthquake damage to their own houses;  and 3) don't know of friends
> and
> family members whose houses have been damaged by earthquakes.   So,
> when folks
> on this listserv mount soap boxes to preach ever-stricter seismic
> design and
> construction requirements and practices, and to bash incompetent
> designers
> (i.e. architects and civil-civils), it isn't surprising that they make
> little
> impact on the average citizen, construction mechanics, contractors and
> developers.  Such apocalytic warnings just don't correlate with their
> own life
> experiences, notwithstanding the frenzied media coverage of damage
> after each
> earthquake.  People intuitively know that earthquake risks to their
> own body
> and property are much smaller than other risks they face and accept.
> Earthquakes have caused fewer than 3,000 deaths in the U.S. in the
> entire 20th
> century.  Contrast that with the *annual * vehicle deaths of 40,000+,
> and fire
> deaths of 20,000+.  Yet, people aren't clamoring for laws to require
> us to
> only drive Humvees at 15 mph speed limit, or to live in concrete
> bunkers and
> use bedding and furniture made of non-combustible materials.
>
> Bill Allen observed that many postings on this listserv are "preaching
> to the
> choir".  How true.  And equally as effective, since the majority of
> people
> aren't regular churchgoers.
>
> Frank Lew, SE
> Orinda, CA
>
>
>