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

RE: Definition of A sub B in Rho evaluation

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Ah, yes, nobility. 

Funny, though, what goes around comes around. 

The origins and inplementation of the rho factor were as bereft of nobility,
and as coercively pushed without deference to well-credentialed, cautious
skeptics, as any substantive seismic code addition in memory. It remains a
sullying blight on the sponsoring SE Assn which let such slipshoddery pass. 

General Patton noted that it is not what we say, but what we fail to say,
that lets trouble happen and then get worse. 

It may be of interest that there is an expertly compiled, 13-page
Rho-damning paper under consideration by Seismology Committee of SEAONC,
authored by committee member Gary Searer SE, of Wiss Janney Elstner, and
which concludes that for good cause the Rho factor should be immediately
striken from code. This paper has 24 reviewing and co-signing engineers,
including Prof V.V. Bertero of UC Berkeley, a noted exponent of redundancy
in seismic systems. 

Now I'm tolerant of the fact that many people are willing followers of
controlling, coercive religious sects. Often they find comfort in being told
by "authority" in detail how to lead their lives, rather than figure it out
for themselves from first principles. But engineering purports to be founded
in open rationality and scientific method, not in dogma and ritual and
downwardly imposed authoritarian heirarchy. Separation of church and
engineering, in the attitude and methodology sense, should be afforded the
same respect the equivalent gets in our US Constitution. It took a little
roughness and a lapse of nobility to get things to where we could have our
own constitution, and more yet on occasion to preserve it. 

Charles O. Greenlaw SE  Sacramento CA
At 08:04 AM 07/14/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Thanks Paul
>It is refreshing to know that nobility is not dead! 
>I also want to add that there are design examples in the Seismic Design
>Manuals (for 1997 UBC) published by SEAOC.  They include rho calculations.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	Paul_Reilly(--nospam--at) [SMTP:Paul_Reilly(--nospam--at)]
>> Sent:	Thursday, July 13, 2000 8:01 AM
>> To:	seaint(--nospam--at)
>> Subject:	RE: Definition of A sub B in Rho evaluation
>> Ouch B & C.  Unnecessary roughness?  My interpretation for the code
>> required standard of practice is 1936.  I would use 1600, just because.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** 
*   Read list FAQ at: 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to 
*   admin(--nospam--at) and in the body of the message type 
*   "join seaint" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email 
*   to admin(--nospam--at) and in the body of the message 
*   type "leave seaint" (no quotes). For questions, send 
*   email to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********