Let me clarify some of the issues you inquired about the San Jose Building
Division workshop on the 97 UBC structural provisions:
1- In regard to the issue of flexible vs. rigid diaphragm. (Again, as a
reminder to those who may not be familiar with this, the treatment of wood
diaphragm is not a 97 UBC code change). An example was solved involving a
wood roof diaphragm. I expressed my "personal opinion" that the verification
of diaphragm rigidity is not warranted. I elaborated on the issue and
mentioned that there are two different schools of thought on this and
mentioned the lengthy discussions we have had on the SEA list server on this
issue. At no time was it mentioned that this is a City of San Jose policy.
2- We are however, going to bring the issue to the attention of Silicon
Valley Uniform Code Group, which is an entity comprised of building official
in the Bay area. I believe there is a need for some consistent application
of this throughout our region. Being busy with the code adoption process and
regular work I have not had the chance to formulate a policy initiative and
present it to the Group yet, but it will be done pretty soon.
3- There were no specific documents presented in the workshop for this
particular issue. The handout that was distributed contained sample case
studies of different types of constructions and how they are affected by the
Hope this clarifies it for you. I will keep you posted on how this
progresses in our jurisdiction and what the eventual policy may turn out to
Ben Yousefi, SE
San Jose, CA
From: Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com [SMTP:Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 11:47 AM
Subject: Inq. - San Jose Seminar - Rigid vs Flexible
I received a call from a friend the other day who informed me that
a seminar held in San Jose and sponsered by the Department of
Safety. I was told that San Jose has decided not to adopt the
consideration of rigid diaphragm design in wood framed construction.
friend was not specific about the seminar since he did not attend
given the information by another engineer.
It was further understood that the building official presented a
document containing their justification for this decision.
Can someone provide me with more specific information that:
1. Provides a synopsis of what the seminar contained,
2. What documents were made available and how I might obtain a copy
3. Confirm or deny that San Jose is not complying with the diaphragm
deflection criteria for wood framed structures - OR - what size
(if any) are exempted.
4. If the information is correct - how San Jose overcame the
associated with modification of the code to a lesser standard than
I think many of us would be most interested in the content of this
and I hope that some of you who may have attended (or better still,
employee of the San Jose building department) would respond and
Dennis S. Wish PE