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]
Chuck:

I don't understand your reply, I think you missed the point here.

The issue is the discrepancy in the definition of Life Safety between
the 1997 UBC and FEMA 310.

FEMA 310 is currently designated as a "prestandard".  However, the goal
of FEMA 310 is to be a document that can be adopted by Building Codes
and in contracts as a basis for design.  


"The ASCE Standards Committee on the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, with over 200 members, is currently preparing an ASCE/ANSI
approved voluntary consensus standard, suitable for adoption by building
codes and inclusion in contracts, using the FEMA 310 handbook as a
basis."

My question has nothing to do with how the building was actually
constructed, or what my personal philosophy (which you did not correctly
state) on proper minimum design standards are.

This has nothing to do with the rigid diaphragm issue.

What must be resolved is what types of design and construction do indeed
provide life safety standards.   The 1997 UBC standard, or the FEMA 310
standard, both of which are VERY DIFFERENT for light wood framing.

So I am sorry to have to say thank you for your reply, but your response
had nothing at all to do with the questions.

Does anyone else out there have anything to say on these apparent
discrepancies? 

Frank McClure, do you have anything to say?  I'm not necessarily looking
for a you are right or wrong type of response, maybe just point out
something that I am missing to make this whole thing go away.

Thanks

Lynn



chuckuc wrote:
> 
> Lynn-
> Now we're getting somewhere.
> 1.  If you were to actually inspect your 1976 house you'd find 1/2"
> GWB,unblocked, and nailed at 7" o.c.
> 
> 2.  According to your logic the owners should/would have no legal recourse
> but to wait until a big earthquake wrecked their home.
> 
> 3.  You'd be well satisfied with your design if the home was totally
> distroyed, as long as no one got killed.
> 
> Have you made any calculations regarding the cost savings your clients will
> see for a non code compliant design?
> 
> The fact is, we are abysmally ignorant about wood frame loads, load
> distributions, capacities, testing and analytical methods, and performance
> under a design event.  If you are really curious about where the state of
> the art is headed, I suggest you get a copy of  CUREe #W- 01.
> 
> In a few more years we may have enough test information to do real
> engineering on these structures.  In the meantime I'm going to be
> conservative in my design work (follow the 97 code) and inspect the heck out
> of anything I've signed off on ( on a time and materials basis).
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > **** ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > *   subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to
> > *   admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message type
> > *   "join seaint" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email
> > *   to admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message
> > *   type "leave seaint" (no quotes). For questions, send
> > *   email to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
>