Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re:

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Yes, but isn't this the way to come to consensus  --- to make things so vague 
that each party thinks that their position is adopted?

A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona

Paul Feather wrote:

. > ----- Original Message -----
. > From: "Yousefi, Ben" <Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)ci.sj.ca.us>
. > To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
. > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 8:25 AM
. > Subject: RE:
. > Ben Yousefi Wrote:


. > > No, it's the maximum possible moment that can be exerted to the frame by
. > the
. > > components of the lateral load path that deliver the force to the frame.
. > For
. > > example if the moment due to the strength of the diaphragm delivering 
. > the > load to the frame, is smaller than the Mu, then that would be the
. > governing
. > > design force. This language is scattered throughout the code on several
. > > issues such as the beams supporting discontinuous shear walls and the
. > brace
. > > connections. It's annoying language, which I personally wish would be
. > > stricken out of the code. It causes confusion and ends up wasting a lot 
. > of > our time in the plan review arguing with designers about what the 
. > true > strength of elements delivering the forces is.


. > Could not agree more.  Try working with all the vague "code" provisions 
. > and every single building departments different interpretations of them 
. > from the design end. Talk about wasted time.  Engineering is an art and 
. > science. Things do not always fit precisely into often conflicting text 
. > book type code provisions.

. > Look at the current "washer requirements" discussion for a classic 
. > example. The need for plate washers was developed as an intuitive 
. > reaction to an observed problem, yet some cities (LA) cannot even accept 
. > this simple provision without spending countless time and effort (and tax 
. > dollars) deciding that the washers need to be a 1/16" thicker or an 1/8"
. > wider.  I would be really curious to see the justification for all these
. > little changes, combined with a reality check regarding the global 
. > concept of what is trying to be achieved.

. > Paul Feather

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions 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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********