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]
Right on bro'- Power to the People!  Let's do it!  
The code-writers sometimes forget the practical side of things- I think they
got a bit carried away in this (1997)  code! (IMHO).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lynn [mailto:lhoward(--nospam--at)silcom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 8:03 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Effects of the New Code on Wood structures - good
> orbad?????-Part 1
> 
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
>