Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Redundancy Factor

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
For now, this post only refers to small (3 stories
or less, less than 10,000 sq. ft.) light wood framed
residential and commercial buildings.

In light of the convoluted mess the rigid diaphragm
analysis requires, and the recent disclosures about
the new Code Rho factor, I am recommending that
local building officials adopt an amendment to the
1997 Code allowing seismic design to conform to the
requirements of the 1994 UBC until this mess has
been cleared up.

I am going to write a letter to the City and County
of Santa Barbara, and City and County of Ventura
(where we do most of our work)  asking them to take
this or some similar action. 

In the mean time, I will be writing a letter to John
Shipp of SEAOC asking for SEAOC to issue an official
written position on the 1997 UBC seismic design as
it applies to light wood framed structures.  I will
be asking for wording that will allow building
officials to adopt the SEAOC position letter in lieu
of certain sections of the Code.

SEAOC should consult with SEVERAL members who are in
regular business practice of doing this kind of work
in putting together this position statement.  

There is MASS CONFUSION right now in the structural
engineering community on these issues, and I expect
SEAOC to step up and deal with this matter as soon
as possible.  This is not the time to hunker down in
the bunkers.  

For those of us in practice doing the design of
light wood framed structures, this is a very
important issue.  

Leaders, please LEAD!