Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Effects of the New Code on Wood structures - good orbad?????-Part 1

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
But Dennis:
These provisions have been in the Code for years, and none of us has
been sued
for not doing a rigid diaphragm analysis on a small wood framed
project.  Why do 
you think that would change?  The Code has not changed, and if the
Engineering 
community behaves in the same fashion as they have in the past and
continues to 
ignore these provisions, then it could still be pointed out that it is
standard 
practice for Engineers to ignore this provision in the Code.
Maybe instead of devoting our time to try and figure out how to design
for what increasingly
seems to me to be a NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE set of criteria, we should instead
put 
our efforts into trying to convince engineers to do "business as
usual".  We can
BOYCOTT the Code :)  Yeah that's it, marches in the street,
demonstrations at Berkeley, boy
this brings back the 60's all over again!!!  :)

Okay, I'm getting carried away, but I seriously think that if the
argument is that
"what are you crying about, this has been in the code all along", then
we should
respond, okay, we will ALL continue to IGNORE this section of the Code,
just as we
have been doing all along.  This strategy has served us well so far, and
should continue to 
do so.  

Lynn

Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 7/22/99 2:26:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> lhoward(--nospam--at)silcom.com writes:
> 
> << This is a good questions, and I would also like a response to this.
>  However, my feelings are that if there are in fact no changes in the
>  Code, and we as an engineering community have been successfully ignoring
>  these sections of the code for 30 years, then WHY CANT WE CONTINUE TO
>  IGNORE THIS STUFF!!! >>
> 
> Lynn - ask the engineers among us who do Expert Witness work. How many
> engineers are brought into court for providing a less than code acceptable
> standard of design. I think that many of us on this list have been the
> defendents (fortunately I have not) in cases where the lack of compliace with
> this section of the code has bitten us in the but. I think Chuck Greenlaw can
> expound on this better than I, but I am aware of a number of cases where the
> engineer was crusified for not following these provisions back to 1991.
> 
> Dennis
>