Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: SEAOC seismology opinion regarding 10/Lw factor for calculating rho

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I read Martin Johnson's comments with some trepidation - especially the
section that warns that "this is just a proposal, which is subject to
possible rejection during upcoming ICC hearings." Following this is the
boilerplate language "SEAOC can really only recommend that all engineers
ALWAYS OBEY THE EXISTING BUILDING
CODE, AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTION.  It is public law, and we cannot
recommend any other action." I interpret this to read "SEAOC has made a
mistake and codified this error for all time.. Inasmuch as we are not really
willing to pursue correcting our error we can only recommend that you always
obey the existing building code - including our flaws, as adopted by the
local jurisdiction, who we don't have the time to alert as to our mistake or
insure that the officials are notified by publication of our error in ICBO
published journals. Therefore, you must obey the law regardless of how
inappropriate and improper it really is." This is only my interpretation and
I would be remiss to suggest that others feel as strongly as I about this.

10/Lw was originally intended for implementation of masonry and concrete
buildings and no consideration was given for wood structures. This is fact
and is substantiated by many Seismology members who participated in the code
process, including Dick Phillips, Allen Porsche, Ron Hamburger and many
other prominent engineers. Considering that it was released for use in wood
construction wrongly, how hard is it for SEAOC Seismology committee to
correct their mistake at the ICC hearings. It is not reasonable to me to
think that any group who is empowered to create a law would allow an error
to perpetuate.

For those like me who are ignorant of the process, would someone please
explain the proposal/hearing process? Who participate, who votes on the
structural issues and what is the appeals process.
So far, Mr. Johnson has written to tell me that it is not possible to repeal
the code as Bob Bossi has outlined. I think that Mr. Johnson simply is not
motivated to explore the possibility with ICBO.

Respectfully,
Dennis S. Wish PE

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W. Johnson [mailto:MWJ(--nospam--at)eqe.com]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 12:22 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: SEAOC seismology opinion regarding 10/Lw factor for calculating
rho




During the Sept 29 seismology meeting, the committee voted to submit a code
change proposal for the 2001 IBC Supplement No. 1, with the following
language:

"In light-frame construction, the value of the ratio of 10/Lw need not be
taken
greater than 1.0."

Please note that this is just a proposal, which is subject to possible
rejection
during upcoming ICC hearings.

Meeting minutes for the Sept. meeing will be posted to the web server
following
the upcoming Dec 3/4 meeting (they exist only in draft form at this time).

For engineers who are currently engaged in light-frame structural design,
SEAOC
can really only recommend that all engineers ALWAYS OBEY THE EXISTING
BUILDING
CODE, AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL JURISDICTION.  It is public law, and we cannot
recommend any other action.

Wishing you all a great Thanksgiving
Martin