Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Fwd: '97 UBC Lateral Design - Envelope Solutions????

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 9/23/1999 6:45:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Seaintonln 
writes:

<< Subj:    Re: '97 UBC Lateral Design - Envelope Solutions????
 Date:  9/23/1999 6:45:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
 From:  <A HREF="mailto:Seaintonln";>Seaintonln</A>
 To:    <A HREF="mailto:Mark.Swingle(--nospam--at)dgs.ca.gov">Mark.Swingle(--nospam--at)dgs.ca.gov</A>
 
 In a message dated 9/23/1999 5:26:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Mark.Swingle(--nospam--at)dgs.ca.gov writes:
 
 << (MS) Sorry, Dennis, but if you are going to rant like this, READ THE CODE.
  The code does not use the phrase "rigid diaphragm".  >>
 
 Mark, if you want to answer the question or offer opinions please do so. I 
resent the accusation of "ranting" about the problem. I don't give a rat's 
ass what the code translates to since it is, at best, uninformative and does 
not clearly define the practical application to real world problems. Instead, 
it leaves enough ambiguity to allow and engineer to use his professional 
judgment (what may be left of it) and another engineer the ablity to 
challenge it in court at the laters expense. 
 
 If you re-read my post you will find that rather than ranting about rigid 
vs. flexible, I was asking the opinions of other as to how they approach the 
methodology. Regardless of your opinion or that Doug Thompson noted that the 
code does not require and Envelope approach - Dougs contribution to the 
design examples indeed uses the envelope approach. Most of us are to 
interpret the design examples provided by a member of the Seismology 
committee who was assigned the task of providing this example as being a 
recommended standard of practice - even a standard of care.
 
 My purpose was to present this issue at the Panel discussion in Santa 
Barbara inasmuch as it was one of the most asked questions both of me and of 
Shafat Qazi who compiled the questions.
 
 In closing, the code be written based with the intent of a method or 
proceedure that was used to define the code section. Whether a diaprhagm is 
rigid or flexible is irrelevent since the manner in which the code is written 
does not expressly address the conditions in between as you suggest. The 
absence of a definition does not imply that there is a large gray area. If 
the code was clear that diaprhagms are neither rigid nor flexible, then the 
authors should be able to definitivly state what steps are required to 
ecconomically design a solution that satisfies the code - it does not.
 
 You have clearly pointed out the ambiguity in the code and, in my opinion, 
attack me for asking for directions or opinions as to how to resolve this. I 
do resent that. I simply do not posses your superior intellegence nor your 
clear understanding of the code, nor your ability to justify and convince 
others of this so simplistic problem.
 
 Dennis >>

--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 9/23/1999 5:26:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Mark.Swingle(--nospam--at)dgs.ca.gov writes:

<< (MS) Sorry, Dennis, but if you are going to rant like this, READ THE CODE.
 The code does not use the phrase "rigid diaphragm".  >>

Mark, if you want to answer the question or offer opinions please do so. I 
resent the accusation of "ranting" about the problem. I don't give a rat's 
ass what the code translates to since it is, at best, uninformative and does 
not clearly define the practical application to real world problems. Instead, 
it leaves enough ambiguity to allow and engineer to use his professional 
judgment (what may be left of it) and another engineer the ablity to 
challenge it in court at the laters expense. 

If you re-read my post you will find that rather than ranting about rigid vs. 
flexible, I was asking the opinions of other as to how they approach the 
methodology. Regardless of your opinion or that Doug Thompson noted that the 
code does not require and Envelope approach - Dougs contribution to the 
design examples indeed uses the envelope approach. Most of us are to 
interpret the design examples provided by a member of the Seismology 
committee who was assigned the task of providing this example as being a 
recommended standard of practice - even a standard of care.

My purpose was to present this issue at the Panel discussion in Santa Barbara 
inasmuch as it was one of the most asked questions both of me and of Shafat 
Qazi who compiled the questions.

In closing, the code be written based with the intent of a method or 
proceedure that was used to define the code section. Whether a diaprhagm is 
rigid or flexible is irrelevent since the manner in which the code is written 
does not expressly address the conditions in between as you suggest. The 
absence of a definition does not imply that there is a large gray area. If 
the code was clear that diaprhagms are neither rigid nor flexible, then the 
authors should be able to definitivly state what steps are required to 
ecconomically design a solution that satisfies the code - it does not.

You have clearly pointed out the ambiguity in the code and, in my opinion, 
attack me for asking for directions or opinions as to how to resolve this. I 
do resent that. I simply do not posses your superior intellegence nor your 
clear understanding of the code, nor your ability to justify and convince 
others of this so simplistic problem.

Dennis

--- End Message ---