Yes! Yep, me over here!
If I have the slightest concern, even over so-called "code-compliant"
measures, I review the "calc" if only to have a good basis for accepting or
arguing against any measure. I explain in cases where I appear to differ
from the "accepted" or "code" specification, that I am uncomfortable with
the measure or "accepted" specification and, if I am to sign and seal it,
then the proponent of the measure better convince me of the error of my ways
or else he/she can carry the responsibility.
It may be (maybe not!) of interest but two of us here in li'l ol' Victoria
BC have submitted a proposal to our Association that all new buildings
subject to human occupation (without any consideration of size) should have
a mandatory preliminary review by a structural engineer who would then issue
a report identifying items of structural concern. The Building Official
would then be obliged to make a decision on whether the building should have
engineering or not. We appreciate that many standard buildings perform
adequately but we (my co-proposer and I) are sensitive to the fact that,
while we have few significant earthquakes around here, the potential for a
devastating one is probably one of the highest in the world. I don't follow
statistics much so correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that a lot, if not
most, E/Qs occur when people are in their homes. While in Japan (8 1/2 yrs
over 13+) most of the "heavy" quakes I felt were during the early hours of
the morning. Kobe, I think, reinforces my opinion. The great E/Q of the
Juan de Fuca plate in 1700+ also occurred at night. The 1964 Anchorage E/Q
was at night. My wife remembers awaking in Port Alberni, Vancouver Island,
during the night to a visage of an ocean surrounding their home where the
previous day there was but a small river and fields (the result of the
attendant tsunami). We opine that residences are probably going to be
occupied during a quake. Therefore THEY also should have seismic expertise
applied to them.
Hence our initiative. I am hoping that our peers around here will not
continue to hide behind our Part 9 prescription. What I really want
A similar discussion applies to drift snow loading and so on.......
Thor Tandy P.Eng MCSCE
From: Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com <Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com>
To: ROgawa(--nospam--at)aol.com <ROgawa(--nospam--at)aol.com>; seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Date: Thursday, April 15, 1999 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: Reroofing
>In a message dated 4/15/99 12:19:59 AM, ROgawa(--nospam--at)aol.com writes:
>>Since the code allows this activity, I see no reason to
>>get excited. Change the code.
>Is anyone else bothered by the attitude that "anything in the code is okay
>with me"? In other words, if an existing building has a sheet of plywood
>each corner and 1/2" anchor bolts @ 6' oc it's code-compliant and therefore
>shouldn't even mention to an owner or potential owner that maybe it's just
>teeny bit less than we would like to see in a building? Ignorance is
>Just a thought.
>Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E.