Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Code min. Design requirements

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 8/1/99 6:59:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
lhoward(--nospam--at)silcom.com writes:

<< All input is appreciate, as I am struggling to understand all this
 myself.
 
 Lynn >>


Lynn
First off, the provisions for major structural damage is new to the '97 code 
and is used to start defining a performance based design method that is 
consistent with the Blue Book Appendix B - Vision 2000 objectives.

We've discussed this in part - essentially it tries to define design methods 
that can be used to predict the performance level of a building an to allow 
building owners to choose the level of performance that they wish to invest 
in.

I have not read all of Vision 2000 so I would welcome a more detailed 
synopsis of its objectives by members of Seismology or SEAOC board 
representatives. It is not my intention to relate incorrect interpretation of 
this code so I welcome anyone who can offer more information.

I would think that trying to accomplish a predictablel level of performance 
for wood structures is unrealistic and dangerous at this time. However, it 
may be valid for buildings with better control over qulity of construction 
and whose performance has been proven historically to be predictable.  I'm 
not sure if these are realistic goals and am damn sure that they are not in 
residential construction that has been targeted as the cause of most damages 
attributed to the Northridge Earthquake for wood construction.

Good thread - I'd like to see other opinions that can offer different 
perspectives to the issue.

Dennis