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]
The biggest problem is that there is a major discontinuity that exists 
between the policy making community and those of us who must impliment the 
policy. Policy makers have historically used Societies apathy to gain power 
to lead the community rather than draw upon the knowledge and experience 
within the community. This separation between policy makers and implimenter 
of policy still exists and our vocal virtual community is seen by some as an 
attack upon those whose actions are well intended. 
This feeling is counterproductive in a society such as ours that is based 
upon new technology that promotes unity amoung the historically apathetic and 
gives strength to those who would not normally share their opinons.
The Seismology's lack of response to the virtual community, when they are 
completely aware of our opinions is unacceptable. The problem is that they do 
not understand this and consider that our historic lack for participation 
does not deserve an open forum so late in the game. 

I agree with Chuck Greenlaw's comments, from reviewing the latest Blue Book 
draft (as of 7/12/99) for Wood (chapter C805) that the new code provisions 
should be placed on hold, that the past methods of designing by flexible 
diaphragm and tributary distribution must be defined as the "acceptable level 
of professional practice" until which time that the mulititude of unresolved 
issues so clearly defined in Kelly Cobeens Wood draft (and many others I have 
offered) are resolved.

After reviewing the draft of the commentary, I can not help but conclude that 
the Seismology committee believes it is better to pound a square peg into a 
round hole to try and justify a deficient policy than to admit that it is not 
appropriate for some types of wood construction.

With this said, I do believe that as engineers we need to learn from the 
intent of this code that more consideration must be given to the stiffness of 
structural panels within the same line of shear and in close proximity to 
adjacent lines of shear so as to help minimize the possible effects of 
torsion in the diaprhagm. This, I believe can be done by simplified 
prescriptive methods until which time that a method can be derived which is 
appropriate for creative geometries and which can more realisitically predict 
the performance of wood diaprhagms and flexible shearwalls.

My specific comments and references will be included in my package to the 
Seismology Committee for the meeting to be held on August 13th. I will also 
be willing to attend one or two days at the SEAOC Convention in Santa Barbara 
on October first and second to discuss this personally with anyone interested 
in participating.

Respectfully,
Dennis S. Wish 

In a message dated 7/31/99 12:06:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, SDGSE(--nospam--at)aol.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.
   >> >>