Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: California Building Code seismic provisions.[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re: California Building Code seismic provisions.
- From: Mark Gilligan <MarkKGilligan(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 11:27:44 -0500
Charles You may remember that the same time Central Section was exercising their veto to purge Zone 2 from their back yard SEAOSD was exercising their veto to keep San Diego Zone 3 when all of the evidence said it should be in Zone 4. I am a little fuzzier on the history but their was also at one time a proposal for a Zone 5 in parts of Northern California, that died because of political considerations. In the past there has been much complaining about the problems in the code that resulted from individuals pushing their pet ideas. Each of these special provisions were justified based on "local conditions", "protecting public safety", or making construction affordable. The problem has been that we end up with a code that has unintended consequences. I personally do not see much difference between the arguments put forward in the past by SEAOCC and SEAOSD on zonation issues and the arguments put forward by some of the proponents pushing their own pet ideas. We can continue to modify the code in an adhoc manner in response to the emotions of the moment or we can try to adopt a seismic code where provisions can be justified based on objective criteria. Admittedly in the past this was much harder and even now it is not easy. In the long term I believe that we will be better off if we focus on creating a model code that provides a framework, based on objective cirteria, that allows us to consider local conditions. What is complicating this issue is that an individuals perception of risk is not always related to the actual risk. This is well recognized by those who study risk. The result is that in other parts of the country people are probably under estimating the risk while in California we are more (some whould argue overly) sensitive to the risk of earthquakes. The real problem is how do we create a code based on objective criteria while recognizing that people deal with risk in a non objective manner. Mark Gilligan
- Prev by Subject: Re: California Building Code seismic provisions.
- Next by Subject: Re: California Building Code seismic provisions.
- Previous by thread: Re: California Building Code seismic provisions.
- Next by thread: Job Openings in Tucson