Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Need feedback from those using strict interpretation forWoodstructures[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Need feedback from those using strict interpretation forWoodstructures
- From: chuckuc <chuckuc(--nospam--at)dnai.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:36:06 -0700
Dear Lynn-- I obtained my copy of "The Findings and Recommendations of the City of Los Angeles/SEAOSC Task Force on the Northridge Earthquake" through SEAOSC. I suspect you already have a copy. On page 3 of the section entitled "Wood Framed Multi-family Residential" the author characterizes the Northridge earthquake as "moderate" and states that "there was a general perception than building performance was unacceptable and than building codes and the construction process may not be adequate". I guess the long and short of it is that I agree with the author and you disagree. It does not become you to mis-characterize my position regarding design criteria. No major structural damage in moderate earthquakes and life safety performance in design events would be a correct characterization. The fact of the matter is no one really knows what will happen to some of our more adventuresome some design efforts when the "big one" finally hits. However it's pointless for you and I to continue this debate. The 97 UBC is now the law in California and any engineer who chooses not to comply with it assumes great liability. Even if you were able to convince a local Building official not to enforce the new seismic provisions, it would provide no protection for the non-complying engineers. The UBC explicitly states that approval of a drawing that does not conform to code requirements does not mean those requirements are waived. When a building receives the scrutiny of a forensic engineer during the process of defect litigation, it is incumbent on the reviewing engineer to apply the strict provisions of the UBC as a minimum. The fact that the drawings were approved carries no weight in the process of the evaluation. Bob Bossi's recent post says essentially the same thing. Rather than wasting any more time on a pointless debate, why don't we turned our attention to understanding and applying the new code provisions. If a homeowner or cannot afford the cost of a code compliant structural analysis, there is always the option of a more simple design under the Conventional Framing provisions. When we are asked to analyze more complex, highly loaded, structures the owners will simply have to pay the cost of a code compliant design. Chuck Utzman, P.E.
- Prev by Subject: Re: Need feedback from those using strict interpretation forWoodstructures
- Next by Subject: Re: Need feedback from those using strict interpretation for Woodstructures
- Previous by thread: Re: Need feedback from those using strict interpretation forWoodstructures
- Next by thread: Re: Need feedback from those using strict interpretation for Woodstructures