Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Reliability - Redundancy, 1997, Section 1630

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
SEAOSC List Service,<BR>
I am resending the subject message in parts because the SEAOSC List Service <BR>
has limitations on the length of my email messages<BR>
Again, I apologize for any inconvenience caused by my resending this subject <BR>
message, but I considered the contents of the message important.<BR>
Frank E. McClure<BR>
Subject:  Re: Reliabilitiy - Redundancy Factor, 1997 UBC, Section 1630<BR>
(Document link: Robert Bachman)<BR>
          I would like to respond to your E-mail regarding the Reliablity /<BR>
Redundany Factor and Public Review...<BR>
         As someone who has been " inside the tent" my intention with this<BR>
response is not to be defensive on what was done but rather explanatory<BR>
regarding the process which was taken.    The Reliablity/Redundancy factor was<BR>
developed by the Strength Design Ad-Hoc Committee of the Seismology Committee<BR>
(which was formed in 1993) as part of the Strength Desigh Code Change and<BR>
approved for submission as a proposed code change by the local sections and<BR>
State Seismology Committee  in late June 1995.   In October 1995,  I made a<BR>
presentation about the 1997 code change proposal including the<BR>
reliablity/redundancy factor at the  SEAOC convention in Palm Springs(see the<BR>
proceedings).  I would also like to point out that the 1994 - 1995 Seismology<BR>
Committee was the first committee to post its minutes on the SEAOC Web site so<BR>
were trying to communicate to the world about what we were doing....At about the<BR>
same time, I also sent advance copies of the 1997 code change proposal to<BR>
several highly respected engineers, including yourself,  both within SEAOC and<BR>
outside SEAOC and requested their comments especially regarding the<BR>
reliablity/redundancy factor.  I do appreciate that you responded to my request<BR>
and I also do know that Strength Design Ad-Hoc Committee and the Seismology<BR>
Committee did consider them in their deliberations and any proposed<BR>
modifications to the code change proposal.  Frank,  I don't recall if I<BR>
responded to you in writing but I do know we talked by phone about your<BR>
comments.  Frank, if I did not send you a written response, I apologize.  It was<BR>
a busy time for me.<BR>
         The 1997 code change proposal was published by ICBO in a monograph with<BR>
other proposed changes in the fall of 1995.    During the fall and winter we<BR>
asked the local sections to give the proposals a hard critical review including<BR>
working through additional examples and to recommend any modifcations or<BR>
changes.  We also considered your comments in these reviews. Proposed<BR>
modifications were subsequently voted by the State Seismology Committee in<BR>
January 1996.   In February 1996,  a public hearing was held in Sparks, Nevada<BR>
by the ICBO Lateral Forces committee where a modified version of 1997 code<BR>
change proposal including the redundancy factor was approved and submitted to<BR>
the ICBO Annual Business Meeting for final action.  The modified version of the<BR>
code change proposal was subsequently published by ICBO in a monograph along<BR>
with the committee approved code changes for public review and comment and final<BR>
suggested changes were subsequently published.   Finally the 1997 code change<BR>
propoals including any final modifications were approved by the ICBO Building<BR>
Offical members in September 1996 at their Annual Business Meeting in St. Paul,<BR>
Minnesota.   In October of 1996, the Code Change proposal including the<BR>
redundancy/reliablity factor was published as Appendix C of the 1996 Bluebook<BR>
along with some background and  commentary.<BR>
          The Seismology Committee members held seminars about the proposed<BR>
changes in all sections as well as making presentations at SEAOC dinner meetings<BR>
In April of 1996,  after the ICBO Lateral Forces Committee had approved the code<BR>
change proposals,  I sent a letter to the SEAOC Board requesting they develop a<BR>
Seismic Design Guideline Document providing examples on how to interpret and<BR>
design using the 1997 UBC....This has eventually resulted in the Seismic Design<BR>
Manual...something we have all needed for a long time and something I think will<BR>
improve practice by all of us..<BR>
         In the discussions on the list server,  I am concerned that there was a<BR>
feeling that code change proposals may have not been subject to public review<BR>
and comment.   From the above you can see this was not the case.  However,  it<BR>
was not subject to Intenet review and comment as were just transitioning to that<BR>
means of communication and I do not believe ICBO yet had its code change<BR>
proposals on line...<BR>
         One final comment.   I very much appreciated and agreed with Ron<BR>
Hamburger's comments (Committee on Wood).   I agree the code is not a perfect<BR>
document and sometimes as written may result in unintended consequences....but<BR>
it was not from a lack of effort of all involved to anticipate and prevent....I<BR>
am very proud of SEAOC and the work of the Seismology Committee....and I would<BR>
very much like to see us maintain a professional and publicly open approach to<BR>
future code improvements and refrain from personal attacks which I believe have<BR>
no place in our organization.<BR>
        As always your friend,<BR>
             Bob Bachman<BR>
             State Seismology Chair,  1994-1995<BR>