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


[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Peter Higgins stated:

>>>2) All the OSHPD/DSA reviewers are supposed to be SE's, and these aren't

dumb agencies. [No offense intended to my colleagues in City building
departments.] The fact that they have yet to adopt the '97 , let alone IBC
2000 is not necessarily a black mark against them.<<<

It should be noted that DSA no longer performs the structural reviews for

While OSHPD has not adopted the 97 UBC, DSA has modified and adopted the 97
UBC for use on public schools.

I find it interesting to compare the provisions related to schools and
hospitals in california.  The design objective for public schools in
California is life safety, but the design objective for hospitals is on
assuring operability after the earthquake.  It is clear that the criteria
for hospitals should be more restrictive than for public schools.  Given
this I find a number of provisions that apply to public schools which are
more restrictive than the corresponding provisions that apply to hospitals.
 Why is this so?  Which of the codes are wrong?

Mark Gilligan

*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions 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: