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

RE: For Urgent Review and Comment - Blue Book Commentary

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Before we add additional requirements such as Mr. Foley proposes, let's
answer the question that Mr. Frank Lew would have asked if he still
participated in the list:  WHERE ARE THE BODIES???  

Interim fixes "until we have more research" have a way of becoming permanent
parts of an ever expanding code without corresponding increases in safety.
Let's change what's wrong, folks, not add additional requirements with no
rational basis!

Regards,
Bill Cain, SE
Oakland, CA


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	RLFOLEY(--nospam--at)aol.com [SMTP:RLFOLEY(--nospam--at)aol.com]
	Sent:	Sunday, May 23, 1999 10:29 AM
	To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
	Subject:	Re: For Urgent Review and Comment - Blue Book
Commentary 

	I believe an area limitation, below which consideration of the
rigidity of 
	the diaphram need not be made, would be appropriate much like the
limitation 
	for Conventional Construction at least until we have better tested 
	information on how to analyze and quantify the rigidity of the
various 
	assemblies of wood diaphrams.

	Another idea would be to limit the shear wall stress to 1/2 values
(similar 
	to uninspected masonry) if a rigid diaphram analysis is required but
not 
	elected to be  performed. 

	These ideas are put forth in order to keep the computational effort
required 
	for most single family residences, condominiums, or small limited
occupancy 
	structures comensurate with the fees an engineer may realistically
expect to 
	receive. The benefit to cost ratio of a rigid diaphram analysis is 
	questionable, and further may not more accurately predict the
response of the 
	structure due to a number of reasons unrelated to our computational
abilities.