>From the sound of this the errors and comments were not corrected, a second
revision (i.e proof) was not performed.
I have to agree with Bill Allen on this one. The first manual was shabby at
best with errata everywhere and is pretty much a waste of money. I
certainly wont be rushing out to buy more of the same.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis S. Wish <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: Seismic Design Manual - Vol. 2.
> I don't mean to through a wrench into the works, but I, too, was one of
> dozens who reviewed volume 2. We submitted our comments last year (August
> think) and were later told that there would be another revision cycle. As
> understand it now, the publication was sent to printing as a decision was
> made not to go through a second revision process and anything that was not
> resolved by August of last year (in the wood section as far as I know)
> remains the same.
> In my opinion, this means that the publication was simply held in limbo
> until recently when it was released for printing.
> I have not received a final copy to review, but I did receive a call from
> engineer locally who had a few issues with the wood section. One in
> particular was that the rigid diaphragm analysis example allowed for
> negative shears in the distribution to be used to reduce the distributed
> shear into the walls. It is our understanding that the code will only
> you to add additional shear, not reduce it as this would create conditions
> (especially where skewed walls are used) that might result in soft-stories
> or open front structures.
> He pointed out a number of other issues that were unresolved as of yet.
> I would like to recommend that if anyone has specific issues with the
> problems and examples in the publications that they bring them up on this
> list. Some of the members of the Wood committee (myself included) will
> follow the threads and submit them to the wood committee for review and
> comment. I have not been successful in starting a public wood Listservice
> focus on these issues.
> Please feel free to bring them to my attention and I will maintain a file
> all issues that need clarification by the committee.
> Dennis S. Wish PE
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Attila Beres [mailto:Attila.Beres(--nospam--at)Englekirk.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 11:55 AM
> To: Seaint Listserver posting
> Cc: Constantine Shuhaibar; Andrew Vidikan
> Subject: Seismic Design Manual - Vol. 2.
> I think that you are right in finding it appalling (substitute whatever
> you like) that a seminal publication like this is not released earlier.
> At the same time (my-fellow Cornellian) buddy Constantine pointed out
> correctly that it was a volunteer effort for the most part (e.g. do not
> expect much speed in the process). BTW I one of the several dozens of
> engineers reviewing some of the more bug ridden drafts of some examples of
> Vol.1 and 2. and could see first hand how difficult to get people to
> their time doing this.
> I think it would be great to find alternative sources to finance this
> (pharmaceutical companies are routinly spending a fortune for semi-promo
> presentation dinners at the Beverly Hills Hotel or the Regent Wilshire,
> inviting non-MD-spouses like me). So far I was able to get some Subway
> sandwiches for our staff when we have in-house seminars by vendors of
> various building products :)
> As an alternative, I would suggest to put the whole Manual and the
> forthcoming issues on the SEAOC web site (even in a draft format) and
> a custodian to each example to make changes as people comment on.
> While, this would speed up the process, it would strip SEAOC the revenue
> from the sales. And then there are some issues regarding who and when
> allowed to make changes...(I might be a bit naive)
> Attila Beres, PhD, PE
> Project Engineer
> Robert Englekirk Consulting Structural Engineers, Inc.
> Englekirk & Sabol Consulting Structural Engineers, Inc.
> 2116 Arlington Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90018-1398
> 323-733-6673, fax -8682 www.englekirk.com
> Please note, that all communications from this e-mail address, that are
> directly related to a specific project of REI/ESI are to be considered as
> private opinion, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of my