Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Effects of the New Code on Wood structures - good or bad[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Effects of the New Code on Wood structures - good or bad
- From: Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:07:53 EDT
To those who are frustrated with the 1997 UBC wood design provisions. It would be nice if members from Seismology would participate online in our discussions rather than "lurking" in the background and discussing our concerns without our involvment. I have received many responses from SEAOC members in the last month - all of which to inform me that the Seismology committee is aware of our concerns and has spent many hours discussing our concerns. However, although it is not the answer that we would like to hear, the consensus at this point is to use the new code until Seismology and the engineers using it have gathered enough information to make a determination. It is my opinion that Practicing Engineers and the public should not have to bear the cost of research. The code should not have included wood design if there was not sufficient evidence of loss of life or major structural damage attributed to inadequate design methodologies to endorse a dramatic change in design. This is not a dramatic change to those who practice on masonry and concrete, but represents a drastic change and increase in work for those of us who design wood. I feel justified to criticize any engineer - volunteer or not who has an effect on the manner in which I earn a living. This is not a game, nor is it a clinical study - it is a business and will affect most of us financially one way or the other. Seismology Volunteers are no better nor worse than the rest of us who participate on this list and feel that the code is improper for wood design of residential structures. So far, the difference is that SEAOC members (which I am an active participant) appear to feel that they are being attacked after throwing the first stone - this new code and have yet to address the professional community face to face. I suspect, as with most legal matters, that our concerns are "Taken under advisement and a decision will be reached which we will all be notified off." Excuse me but we live in the 21st century (as of a few months) and have the technology to discuss this with those in a position to create change. What Rick fails to explain is the endless amount of "Politics" that exist. In this case, Politics is defined as "Ego", "Sensitivity to criticism" and "bull-headedness". If, as a volunteer of SEAOC you feel that this provision is justified, tell me this: 1) How many more lives will it save compared to past codes? 2) How much will it reduces the Insurance companies claims for damages in similar earthquakes as we had to Northridge. If you can answer these questions now, then maybe the new code is a good thing. If the answers are either insignificant or unavailable until studies such as the CUREe-Caltech program is completed, then maybe the code change for wood is premature. If you can not guarantee a significant reduction in the cost of claims to the Insurance industry - maybe the code should not have been changed. If homeowners can not benifit from the change by lower deductables than maybe the code change is premature. Now answer me this: If we start seeing more prescriptive construction by conventional standards increasing into the middle class homes, what benifit will this code change have? None. Rather, it will promote poorer quality construction by forcing engineers out of the homebuilding market and placing lower and middle income families into the hands of the developers and contractors. Remember, conventional construction requirments have expanded in this code rather than become more restrictive. Now tell me. Has Seismology considered these issues? I don't think so. Should they have? You bet your life they should have! Who has the right to critisize - WE DO! It is Improper for SEAOC Seismology members to assume that any professional engineer whose business and livlihood relies upon the design of wood structures should not be critical of those who create the code. I doubt very highly if Fluor Daniels designs many lower and middle class wood residences. I doubt that the majority of those Volunteers who sit on the Seismology committee have every given any serious consideration to the ecconomics of residential design and construction. As one member pointed out, it would have been better for Seismology to have studied the effects on wood structures rather than release it into the professional community so that engineers can experiment at their expense. This is putting the cart before the horse and causing those who can least afford it to bear the expense. As Frank Lew stated many times "Show me the bodies". I think it is no less appropriate to critisize those who refuse to respond to our concerns than it is for you to criticize us for speaking our minds. Dennis S. Wish PE Active Volunteer of SEAOC In a message dated 7/22/99 8:38:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)fluordaniel.com writes: << To those who are frustrated with the 1997 UBC wood design provisions. It is productive to discuss the deficiencies, ambiguities, and possible interpretations of the code. Discussion leads to knowledge and innovations. It is counterproductive to badmouth the SEAOC seismology committee VOLUNTEERS who have provided the input to the code. It is productive to make constructive code input to the VOLUNTEER SEAOC seismology membership, both local and state level. This input should include a detailed thought process of the problems with the current wording, and suggestions to improve the situation. Actual design examples and proposed code wording would be a big help to the VOLUNTEER committee members. From a practical standpoint, proposals should be as revisions to the 2000 IBC, although proposed revisions to the 1997 UBC would still be useful. To those of us who are SEAOC members, the FASTEST way to effect code changes has always been to work through your local seismology committee members. Contrary to the stated opinion of several on the list server, the committee members do work for a living, and they do listen to input from those not on the committees. To those of us who are SEAOC members, the SLOWEST way to effect code changes has always been to gripe, complain, and badmouth the authors. If it's broken, let's fix it, the fastest way possible. Rick Drake, SE Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo >>
- Prev by Subject: Re: Effects of the New Code on Wood structures - good or bad
- Next by Subject: Effects of the New Code on Wood structures - good or bad?????
- Previous by thread: Re: Effects of the New Code on Wood structures - good or bad
- Next by thread: National Building Code 1999 (BOCA)