Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: '97 UBC Lateral Design - Envelope Solutions???? - Part 1

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 9/29/1999 10:03:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Mark.Swingle(--nospam--at)dgs.ca.gov writes:

<< Re: '97 UBC Lateral Design - Envelope Solutions????
 
 Dennis,
 
 Now that you have volunteered to be on the panel this weekend, you have to
 be prepared to stand by your statements more than ever before.  You are now
 in a similar position to that of the committee members of the past who have
 been criticized by you (and others) for not being rational.
  >>

Mark,
The most rational comments to come out of this panel discussion (see my 
specific post) is the agreement that the development of load paths and the 
proper detailing and implimentation is much more important than the design 
methodology used. 

I was not trying to become a proponent of rigid analysis - it has it's place, 
but not in custom residential homes in my opinion. My point was that on 
certain types of structures there was too much discrepency between methods. 
This was not pointed out by the panel members who looked at fairly regular, 
rectangular structures as models. I think a good case in point was John Coils 
model of the retrofit of the four story apartment buildings where he placed 
the entire lateral restraint system in the center of the buildings - 
essentially creating a core with two cantilevered, open front sides. I don't 
believe this is appropriate in wood structures regardless of how stiff the 
core is - but only time will tell.

I'm not sure we would be in this debate had engineers designed narrow but 
highly loaded plywood paneled walls for deflection rather than simply code 
allowable aspect limits (H/b). 
These thoughts were supported by the comments made by Andrew Adelman(?) - 
City of Los Angeles and Chris Christokas (DSA).

As far as being true to my word - the difference in politics and science is 
our ability to change our position on the evidence of truth. We are still far 
from proving the benifits of the code methods for wood structures or 
justifying a change in methodology which is not attributed to loss of life or 
high degrees of structural damage. 
Regardless of what I think, aren't these the most important issues?

Regards,
Dennis