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

Re: Ron Gallagher's Comments in SEAOC Plan Review

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
At 08:41 PM 5/7/99 -0700, you wrote:

>Look at pages 2-1307 in the 94 code and at 2-479 in the 97 code.

>Also maybe you can explain why these infamous words are placed here?

>Neil Moore, S.E.
>neil moore and associates
        [previous message:]
>>Neil, can you clarify where in '94 UBC Sec 2314.1 that the quoted item
        ["DIAPHRAGM, WOOD - Not acceptable as rigid diaphragm"]
>>appears. I cannot even find mention of the adjective words rigid or flexible
>>in connection with the term diaphragm, and this section is on wood shear
>>walls and diaphragms. 

>>Charles O. Greenlaw  SE   Sacramento CA
        [New Reply:]

OK, Neil, I looked at page 2-1307 in the 94 code. It is a page of the index
of topics in the 94 UBC, and has the entry,
                - [three lines of items, then...] 
                - Design, shear walls .....................2314
                - Not acceptable as rigid diaphragm .......2314.1
                - Sub, definition .........................2302

So I go to 2314.1 and I find no mention of rigid diaphragms, flexible
diaphragms, or "not acceptable" diaphragms. What I do find is language not
materially different from that in Sec 2513(a) of both the 88 and 91 UBC's.
(Only the substitution of the term "wood structural panel" for the previous
"plywood" occurred for the 94 edition.)

When I check the index entries for DIAPHRAGM, WOOD in the 88 and 91
editions, I DO NOT find the "Not acceptable as rigid diaphragm" entry.
Somebody added this line in the index for the 94 edition. I do not believe
that the code change proponent also submits an index change as well, or
submits index changes alone. There wasn't any change at all in the 2314.1
text in the 94 edition from the previous two editions regarding this
flexible/rigid issue.

It cannot be fairly argued that the preface, table of contents, or index (as
here) are enforceable provisions of the code or have regulatory effect. They
aren't within any of the chapters, even. They are convenience features only. 

You weren't asserting that wood diaphragms are not acceptable as rigid
diaphragms solely on the authority of this line in the index, were you? 

An attorney could overcome such an argument by a plaintiff's or
prosecution's engineer "expert", but look at the cost it would take.
Defendant loses even in winning, hence the fuss that's being made about
distinguished experts who know so much, so much that ain't so in mundane
work below their areas of practice. 

Suspecting a misprint about Sec 2314.1, I looked all through Chapters 16 and
23 in the 94 edition, and failed to find the term "rigid diaphragm" anywhere
in them.

Pretty soon there won't be any need to have SEAOC section meetings and SEAOC
conventions any more, because we'll be seeing enough of one another in law
offices and in court.

Charles O. Greenlaw  SE    Sacramento CA