Subject: Re: Seismic Upgrade ..... Appeal to those who created the code
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 20:45:25 EDT
In a message dated 5/13/99 5:01:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
<< But the really dismaying part of Mr Sadre's account is his attempt
to mollify unhappy code users with a facile and convenient version of
history that won't square with what this Committee participant knows from
being there at the time. >>
Chuck, you have more than adequately enlightened most of us from your
experiences on Seismology. I have great respect for you but don't fully agree
with your assessment.
Ali Sadre responded to the list on his own volition and tried to offer a
history as he knows or understands it to be. Ali and I met once in passing in
a hotel in San Francisco during a day when Seismolgy Committee were in the
same place as the Computer Applications committee.
I believe that the intention is to admit that there is a problem - regardless
of the history, with the present interpretation and the liability issues
which have admittedly been overlooked in the past. For whatever reasons, the
code does not work for residential structures and it is my understanding that
Ali understands this.
I'm not sure if he has followed the list closely enough to understand the
depth of the issues as it applies to those of us who practice on wood frame
strutures, and this appears to be evident in his belief that a simple
clarification in the blue book can clear up the whole thing.
I followed up his post and asked that he consider submitting a position
statement of intention from Seismology to the list for review and approval so
as to afford us the opportunity to insure adequate coverage from liability.
I don't feel this is an unreasonable request as it comes from those of us,
unlike many of the Seismology members, who have been threatened by this
liability and who have a greater understanding of the performance of wood
structures from a practical point of view.
I think that confrontation is not the issue right now, but resolution of a
problem. It would be nice to have a calm platform to debate history, but this
seems counterproductive to the main issue of repairing an inadvertent
liability issue and methodology requirment.