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]

"Robert J Bossi, PE" wrote:

Dennis: <snip>

The SEAOC Code Change will have no practical effect in California because the
state adopts only the codes every 3 years not the supplements.  It is possible
that an emergency amendment could be made (like the deletion of the pre
qualified moment joint after Northridge) by the CBSC but I doubt that is a real
possibility as the change would be less restrictive.  Also, the SE seat on the
CBSC is vacant as the governor, after 11 months in office, still has not made an

If SEAOC cannot command enough respect (after 71 San Fernando, 79 Imperial Valley, 87 Whitter, 89 Loma Prieta, 90 Uplannd, 92 Yucca Valley (Landers), 92 Cape Mendocino, 94 Northridge) to insure that there is a Structural Engineer sitting on the state's Building Standards Commission in the most frequently seismically active state in the lower 48, we have a lot more problems than just rho!   I recommend someone like Charles Greenlaw, who has both the experience of the process, and a command of the concepts that give meaning to a design code.

I believe we have an oxymoron [a figure of speech in which contrhodictory terms are brought together for emphasis or in an epigram, as in the phrase, "O heavy lightness, serious vanity!"

How can we be in conformance with the intent and purpose of the code if it contains at the same time unintentional and also unfortunate problems with the design factors?  This must have something to do with R2K!  All this is erhoding
my confidence in the code development/adoption/enforcement process.  At least when Popov brought the prequalified special moment frame connection to the table, they did have some test results.  It didn't get in as an unintentional and unfortunate problem; which, by the way, it later became.  It's not like light-frame structural design just came to the planet.


California local governments may not adopt any changes to the code which are
less restrictive.

We are most probably stuck with Rho until at least January 2004 or later when
the 2001 and 2003 supplements automatically become part of the 2003 IBC and that
code becomes the model code in CA.

I favor the WayneGretzky approach:  "You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take."

SEConsultant wrote:  <SNIP>

> 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
> - James Bela

Oregon Earthquake AwarenessTM        /        The Quake NorthwestTM
"We Have Nothing To Fear But R2K Itself"        /        "We're All Subducting In This Together"