I've been following your diatribe concerning Ron Gallagher and flexible
diaphragms for a few days now and am concerned about your flaming-type
A few brief points that I would like to bring your attention to:
1. Both the 1994 UBC and the 1997 UBC referring to sections 2314.1 and
2315.1 respectively state "DIAPHRAGMS, WOOD - Not acceptable as rigid
2. R.P. Gallagher Associates, Inc., a structural and earthquake engineering
firm with experience in the seismic evaluation of buildings prepared the
3. Ron spent many years with John A. Blume and Associates, who are pioneers
in earthquake research. I've known Ron for over thirty years and am taken
aback by the viciousness of your comments.
4. I would suggest that you review the NAVFAC P-355, Chapter 5, section d,
where five different types of diaphragm flexibility are considered: [ Very
flexible, flexible, semi-flexible, semi-rigid and rigid. ] There may be
other more recent publications that address this issue and I would welcome
a more rational discussion.
Neil Moore, S.E.
neil moore and associates
>I draw your attention to the latest Plan Review from SEAOC. On page 5, Ron
>Gallagher's (current chair of the state Seismology Committee and Project
>Manager for the Seismic Design Manual) comments about the importance of the
>Seismology Committee Chairman compared to the presidency of SEAOC is rather
>Gallagher's arrogance scares me as he believes that he is the most important
>person in our profession. Yes, he has the greatest impact and lately is
>causing the greatest amount of ulcers and grievances. He is also paving the
>way for attorneys to have cause to file frivolous lawsuits against engineers
>who (as standard practice) did not comply with the rigid diaphragm
>requirements that Seismology "enhanced" in the 94 Code.
>Anyone else irritated by his arrogance?
>Dennis S. Wish PE