Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Redundancy Factor

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 7/31/99 7:48:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Seaintonln(--nospam--at) writes:

<< However, you as the design 
 engineer are responsible to following the letter of the law and become 
 for your actions if you choose to comply with the building official.
 It's not fair, but it is law. I gave you some references about the legal 
 issues that were given to me by Arnold Bookbinder, S.E. who specializes in 
 Expert Witness work and is involved in similar cases at this time. I'm 
 that we may simply have to work from within the system to help limit our 


As you and others have put forth the question "what has changed since 1988 
UBC to require us to do rigidity analysis on wood floor diaphragm now that 
1997 UBC is in effect?". I still have not seen or heard an answer other than 
"because it was presented in a seminar as an example." If the code language 
regarding rigidity analysis has not changed since 1988 UBC, why are we 
required to do that on residential wood frame diaphragms NOW and not since 
1988? If we are going to be liable now for not doing rigidity analysis, why 
aren't we liable for not doing it since 1988, or are we? Some tribute the 
"change" to the aftermath of Northridge earthquake, but again the requirement 
was there since 1988. I don't believe there is a specific language in the 
1997 code that says "the rigidity analysis is now required for wood frame 
diaphragms as well," so, why consider it now if it was not considered since 
1988 UBC? If the intent of the 1988 UBC was to require such an analysis on 
wood frame diaphragms, why wasn't it advertised or didn't it become known 
then rather than now?

Any official explanation or an explanation of an Official? Maybe the authors 
or presenters of the example presented at the wood seminar last year know the 

Oshin Tosounian, S.E.