Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: new SEAOC seismology web page

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


The sad truth is that there will be no Amendments to the 1997 UBC.  The next
code will be the 2000 IBC.

Even more sad truth is that the SEAOC Seismology committee has very little
direct influence in the IBC process.  The 2000 IBC seismic provisions are
essentially taken from the 1997 NEHRP Provisions.  SEAOC members were on the
committees that input to that, however they were acting as individuals, not as
SEAOC representatives.  Trying to work within the IBC ballot process, the SEAOC
Seismology committee submitted many (about 50?) ballot proposals for the 2000
IBC.  According to Ron Hamburger at the last State Seismology Committee meeting,
only 25% of these proposals were approved.  The other 75% were not.  The ones
that were approved were because of active politicking by SEAOC Seismology
Committee members on the floor at the three regional IBC hearings.  the ones
that were not were in spite of active politicking.

I don't know where we go from here.  The IBC is a national process that responds
very little (if at all) to any regional influences.  Maybe that's the way it
should be, but it makes it difficult for our regional seismic needs to be heard.

And now it looks like the process will be changing again for the 2003 or 2006
IBC.  The IBC people don't want seismic provisions in the IBC at all.  They want
to be able to refer to a seismic standard instead.  This is consistent with the
way that the 2000 IBC refers to ACI 318 for concrete design, AISC for steel
design, ASCE 7 for wind loads, etc.  Now organizations are positioning
themselves over who will be in charge of the proposed seismic standards.  BSSC?
ASCE?  NCSEA?  And how will SEAOC and its State Seismology Committee fit in?
Stay tuned.

In spite of the above, have a Happy Holiday and keep active with the SEAINT list

Rick Drake, SE
Principal Structural Engineer
Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo


"Bill Allen" <Bill(--nospam--at)> on 12/22/99 06:45:55 PM

Please respond to seaint(--nospam--at)

To:   seaint(--nospam--at)
cc:    (bcc: Rick Drake/AV/FD/FluorCorp)

Subject:  RE: new SEAOC seismology web page

O.K., so back to formulating a "concensus" to submit to the seismology

What do you, Mark, recommend we do with regards to this particular issue?

Bill Allen, S.E.
Laguna Niguel, CA

=>-----Original Message-----
=>From: Mark E. Deardorff [mailto:MarkD(--nospam--at)]
=>Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 4:51 PM
=>To: seaint(--nospam--at)
=>Subject: RE: new SEAOC seismology web page
=>Let's see? Where did I say that it shouldn't be corrected? Of
=>course it should. I was just giving you some background, not
=>defending an obvious oversight of an earlier committee.
=>> -----Original Message-----
=>> From: Bill Allen [mailto:Bill(--nospam--at)]
=>> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 4:22 PM
=>> To: seaint(--nospam--at)
=>> Subject: RE: new SEAOC seismology web page
=>> "Almost right" meaning that it is INTENTIONAL that we poor
=>> engineers are faced with doing the redundant calculations for
=>> R=4 for no
=>> apparent benefit to life safety?
=>> Shouldn't this be corrected?
=>> What's wrong with this picture?
=>> Bill Allen, S.E.
=>> Laguna Niguel, CA