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

FWD: SDM Vol 2

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 7/28/00 9:53:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net writes:

<< Oshin,
 This is one of the biggest problems that I have seen with the new code -
 there is no adequate "tracking" of the creation process. Sections and
 methods get changed but "nobody knows why" is the only answer we get.
 Imagine being in court and getting grilled by a smart attorney who is just
 waiting for you to use this as an excuse.
 This is, in my opinion, simply inexcusable and should not be tolerated.
 
 I spoke with an SE who attended the seminar last Saturday and asked what the
 opinion was of those in attendance. He told me that most were complacent and
 felt that all they could do was comply with the code - that there was little
 or no chance to expect corrections or change to occur by the SEAOC
 Seismology Committee. When I asked if this engineer was designing to full
 compliance, he laughed and said that he was design the way he always had -
 to flexible analysis only. He justified this by saying that the building
 department in his area (Ventura) was accepting traditional design methods
 and has never expected more. He further noted that he had liability
 insurance which he believed would protect him.
 
 I did not get a chance to tell him that I believed he had a number of
 problems at hand - regardless of what the building officials will accept:
 
 1. He is held responsible for non-compliance if he gets sued - regardless of
 the opinion of the building official.
 2. With insurance, he has an annual premium and a deductible that has to be
 paid for each claim if he is proven liable or if it is deemed less expensive
 to settle out of court. Even More Important;
 3. I would expect any insurance company to negate involvement in any claim
 where it is blatant that the engineer has not complied with the letter of
 the code. In this case, the engineer can not leave the responsibility to his
 insurance company who only will protect him if his mistake is not
 intentional.
 
 This needs to be made clear to the engineers who are not designing by full
 compliance methods. With this knowledge, I hope that most engineers will
 demand a closer look into the applicability of the code for residential
 structures rather than feeling helpless against the Seismology Committee and
 Code process and who feel that liability coverage will protect them. Would
 you mind passing this on to the list members?
 
 Thanks,
 Dennis
 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: SDGSE(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:SDGSE(--nospam--at)aol.com]
 Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 11:10 AM
 To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
 Subject: Re: SDM Vol 2
 
 

 In a message dated 7/27/00 10:02:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, SThompsonB
 writes:
 
 << Oshin:
 
  What happened was the "Exception" in 1994 UBC(Section 2311.1) somehow got
 omitted and nobody knows why (SEAOC, ICBO and NDS).  Since the SDM is a
 "litteral" application of the code, the book calls for the galvanized bolts
 and nails.
 
  Doug Thompson >>
 
 Thanks Doug.
 
 Now, what do we do? Do we specify galvanized bolts and nails and risk
 getting
 hit by a 2x4 on the job site, which we almost are for other code
 ambiguities,
 or ignore the code and give ammunition to a future expert witness? you're
 damned if you do and damned if you don't.
 
 What do SEAOC, ICBO and NDS plan to do? Any remedies in the works?
 
 Regards,
 
 Oshin Tosounian, S.E.
 Los Angeles, CA
  >>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** 
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp 
*   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)seaint.org and in the body of the message type 
*   "join seaint" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email 
*   to admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message 
*   type "leave seaint" (no quotes). For questions, send 
*   email to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********