Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Redundancy Factor or Redundant Redundancy Factor/Code

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 7/30/99 5:46:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)speedlink.com writes:

<< One thing I cannot avoid concluding: Seismology Committee as we know it is
 NOT, by temperament, interest, or intimacy with the applicatation, capable
 of solving the present problems about seismic for woodframe residences.
 Seismology Committee should admit this, should formally resign from
 residential woodframe and declare that it cannot and will not assert itself
 as a code authority in that area, and should then give the problem of
 finding an organizational remedy back to the SEAOC Board of Directors it is
 properly accountable to. Nothing less will do. No chance of getting a
 simple, efficient, safe-for-engineers residential seismic code exists as
 long as Seismology thinks it owns the show.
  >>

Excellent presentation. 

This new revelation by Ron confirms, yet again, that the code changes were 
never intended for the light-frame residential construction, but were forced 
on us with no sufficient data or research.

I am still reluctant to read the 1997 UBC in preparation for my new projects 
as I am disgusted by the confusion it created to many on this list who are 
trying to figure what is what. I have already intentionally lost few 
residential projects because I requested double my usual fee, blaming it on 
the tedious calculations that I have to go through for what used to be "a 
simple two story single family house." I guess I will have to phase out 
residential construction from my service list.

Oshin Tosounian, S.E.