Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Wood: Are you as confused as I?????[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Wood: Are you as confused as I?????
- From: Charles Greenlaw <cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)speedlink.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 00:34:52 -0700
At 10:55 PM 8/16/99 EDT, Dennis Wish wrote: >So, here is my question for the day: > >How many 'small' offices (less than 5 employees) have submitted projects >since the first of July using the new code provisions? What type of plan >check corrections, if any, are you receiving and what are the plan check >technicians asking for? >How many of you have had one-on-one plan reviews and did you have to debate >issues with the plan checker? If so, what was the most confusing issues that >you could not seem to agree upon? > >I'm curious since I received calls from three of the six or eight engineers >in my area and so far not one of them is totally clear on how to resolve code >issues. > >Dennis Wish PE ------------------------------------- I've read five other replies so far, and I agree with them that one cannot make sense of much of the 97 code for seismic in woodframe because it does not make sense with itself or with the realities if that type of construction. But first, Bill Allen asked about >The seismology committee meeting minutes from the August 13 meeting (did Frank Lew's proxy show up?)> Frank sent me a message privately about this meeting and the flexible vs rigid issue as relates to wood diaphragms; he had looked up the message traffic on this in the e-mail archives. I learned from him that there were concerns about this very matter at several stages in ICBO deliberations in 1986 when the Ed Zacher -originated definitions were newly introduced. Frank, you see, was the chairman of the ICBO Seismology Committee in 1986 when the omnibus SEAOC seismic package to the '88 UBC was processed. Although doubts similar to today's were raised at that time, there was nobody interested in pursuing the matter then who had both the knowledge of the subject in woodframe and the clout to take on the SEAOC Seismology in the eyes of voting ICBO members. And the SEAOC rep offered no solution either. Nothing in what Frank said to me suggests that the unhappiness and dismay now being expressed about SEAOC Seismology Committee with respect to residential and similar woodframe is other than right on target. Back to the question about satisfying the building official: Below is copied in the list opinion of 6-1-99 of Ben Yousefi SE, of the City of San Jose's building department, and who holds an ICBO chairmanship in structural matters. It is a good faith perspective, and I add it in here in that spirit, even though I don't feel the remedy offered is sufficient for more than getting past plan check in jurisdictions like his. I would urge that any "deal" made with the building official be prominently memorialized in the calculations as a defense against future allegations that the design outcome violated code. Ben said, >My final comment is regarding code language and how we interpret it. Codes are written as general guidelines that set basic criteria for how things should be designed. Thus the "shall" language addresses only the clear cut situations without considering other relevant facts. It is not intended for the code, nor is it possible, to address every possible condition in real life design and analysis of a building. >Therefore, the judgment of the engineer of the record in conjunction with the code regulating authority is of utmost importance in order to implement a sound application of the code. I agree wholeheartedly that all things are not black and white and there are many shades of gray. But we can't expect the code to address all those shades. There are clear mechanisms in the code that allow for application of sound engineering judgment in those cases. Please refer to sections 104.2.7 and 104.2.8 regarding Modifications and Alternate material, design and methods of construction. >Having worked in a building department environment for the past 12 years, I have sat on numerous preliminary design meetings with architects and even electrical and mechanical engineers to discuss interpretation of code issues to their unique design. And on numerous occasions, applications are filed for the alternate methods and materials used. Conspicuously absent from these meetings are structural engineers. This has always baffled me. I urge the design community to consider discussing issues with the building officials, and others in a regulatory environment, when there are gray areas and work together to come of with an interpretation that is mutually acceptable and that "meets the intent of the code". In the meantime those who are not satisfied with the current code requirements, such as in the diaphragm flexibility determination, are encouraged to put their ideas forward and hopefully come up with better language in the future codes.> That is what Ben suggested. Hope it works. What else is there? Charles O. Greenlaw SE Sacramento CA
- Prev by Subject: Re: Wood: Are you as confused as I?????
- Next by Subject: Re: Wood: Are you as confused as I?????
- Previous by thread: 1997 UBC 1806.6
- Next by thread: Re: Wood: Are you as confused as I?????