Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: 97 Code is a Life Safety Standard[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re: 97 Code is a Life Safety Standard
- From: "Ed Workman" <eworkman(--nospam--at)fix.net>
- Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:52:03 -0700
-----Original Message----- From: sasquake <sasquake(--nospam--at)uswest.net> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org> Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 5:19 PM Subject: Re: 97 Code is a Life Safety Standard > >Would you >want every building in Turkey and Taiwan and Kobe and Northridge totally >unusable >and unoccupiable after an earthquake, as long as life loss was minimized? > It is this fuzzy "thinking" that obscures and emotionalizes the issue. Turkey, Taiwan and Northridge are vast, large and relatively small areas. Are you actually suggesting there is a possibility that "every building in Turkey" constructed substantially in accord with a building code could be so affected? Taiwan is much smaller, but please answer the same question. Now Northridge is a small part of the San Fernando Valley, which is a small part of the City of Los Angeles, which is a small part of the Southern California seismic area. No I don't "want" every building in Northridge to be unusable, but among all the possibilties cited that MAY actually be one. And yes I would accept it on the basis of no loss of life if, as I believe it does, means that a substantially higher number of people can have adequate housing (because it is affordable). See Mr. Greenlaw's posts regarding public policy. Yes everybody who lived in LA looked at the Northridge area in horror, along with the rest of the world, but when they realized that they were OK in Torrance, Covina, Boyle Heights, etc. even tho they'd been knocked out of bed, the desire to pass laws, codes, etc quickly evaporated. For the technical part of this experience read up on the attempts of LA City to address moment frame buildings in downtown LA. The question that must be explained to the "public" so that they can make an informed choice is : Do you want to pay x% extra now on the y% chance in the future your house (office, etc) will be made unusable if you don't spend it ( but there's no guarantee that x% will do it)? Except in the emotional time immediately following a seism the answer has been the desire to spend as little as possible now in order to increase the non-probability of death (particularly one's own) later to a fairly predictable, high level.
- Prev by Subject: RE: 97 Code is a Life Safety Standard
- Next by Subject: Fwd: 97 Code is a Life Safety Standard
- Previous by thread: RE: 97 Code is a Life Safety Standard
- Next by thread: Fwd: 97 Code is a Life Safety Standard