Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Wood Moment Frame?[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: Wood Moment Frame?
- From: "Dennis Wish" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)gte.net>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 22:02:38 -0800
I love it!!!! Not only is the story great - but I think I attended (as a speaker) the same seminar - although I'm sure every code seminar from the adoption of the 97 UBC to the present was attended by the same building officials hoping to obtain the same answers and leaving feeling that if they had to pay out of pocket, they would ask for their money back. The seminar I attended was sponsored by SEAOSC and intended to break the news gently (at the expense of those who attended) that LRFD (or is it LFRD) would be added in the next code cycle. I was there to give a brief lecture explaining how we could all use spreadsheets to create our own design tools - but little did I realize that we all needed to understand the intent of the code designers. It appears that the Seismology Committee took their cue from the Microsoft school of software coding as they decided not to release the source code (AKA flow or logic charting of the code evolution). Fortunately, they were willing to take our specific questions, which were to be submitted in writing to the Seismology Committee (duplicate questions were not allowed) who would formulate (or maybe postulate) a response which would be returned to the professional community in an expedient six months or less. I found the minutes on line for the discussion as to how the questions would be handled. A website was set up and only questions submitted to the website would be responded to (or as the minutes indicated, purposely not responded to). One fellow suggested that possibly SEAOC could benefit from answering these questions by selling the answers or charging the professional community an hourly rate to provide a response. So, let's take a poll - it has been over two years since the codification of the 97 UBC and we have a response on cantilevered columns (although no formal code changes), an opinion that all of the work Gary Searer did to discredit Rho (the Redundancy and Reliability value for those who might have forgotten) would be ignored as it yielded conservative values and who really cared what the public had to pay for (yes I'm paraphrasing and being sarcastic at the same time). There are three programs available to the general public for design - Woodworks, Keylat and Dave Merrick and my spreadsheet - Multi-Lat. None of these have reached a consensus that has led to a professional standard of practice as to how to deal with skewed shearwalls in flexible diaphragm analysis, or how to deal with the opinions suggested on Rho (from a liability point of view). HOWEVER, I think the issue related to cantilevered columns is pretty well answered. I do think that a few really sharp building officials have taken issues well in hand and suggested an alternative method of design that yielded conservative results but is surprisingly similar to the Simplified Static Principles indicated in the code. So how are my peers designing? I put the question to many - most small firms and many large firms (including some with representation on the Seismology Committee. As it turns out, they are designing very much the same way as I am doing - Simplified Static Design. In most cases it is very easy to justify away any irregularities by finding lines of shear close enough to be considered in the same line and ignoring other obvious irregularities. This means that we simply ignore rigid diaphragm design and stick with the conventional (sorry, wrong term) flexible diaphragm analysis. I've yet to meet one engineer who will design full compliance for a complicated custom home to include rigid diaphragm analysis. It ain't worth it. If you do try to combine the methods (flexible and rigid) for an envelope solution, you wind up so overly conservative that if I were the developer who hired me, I would be seeking to simplify the design of my custom home and go with the prescriptive design method. Let's face it, I can make more money doing this as a builder. SEA has been around for over 50-years. In that time, engineers who volunteered and worked to establish an organizations that would represent the needs of its members and work to uphold the safety of the public who enter our buildings. At some point in SEA's history, we gained an advantage in government and became a political power that shaped the direction and evolution of codes. In my opinion, SEA lost their way in the last ten years or so. They no longer represent engineers; instead they use the political strength that was built upon the backs of their predecessors and the complacency of the members who blindly pay dues without considering how their money is being used. I know I am going to be spammed by those who are believe that this form of communication would not be possible without the support of SEAOSC and our dues. However, as one who helped build this infrastructure, I am very disappointed that it is prevented from reaching its full potential by preventing the discussions to go only so far as to become a bit*hing session and nothing more. My personal opinion is that our dues are the only source of power we have to voice our concerns. Past experience has shown that we are ignored. It isn't a question of winning or losing - after two or three years working with a flawed code, the flaws remain. The only way to practice without personal liability is to practice to a standard that has been established through the profession as a standard of professional practice. This has not happened and with the exception of minor compromises - not of which is sufficient to define a standard of practice. The bottom line is that programmers can not write code without specifically laid out paths of logic. Unless the confusion that prevents Keymark, AF&PA or even us little guys from completing our tools is resolved, the tools (programs) will never be completed - certainly not before LFRD is added into the equation. Whoops! There I go again - tripping over that damn soapbox. Dennis S. Wish, PE California Professional Engineer Administrator - The Structuralist.Net Website: http://www.structuralist.net Professional Forum: http://www.structuralist.net/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.cgi ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- RE: Wood Moment Frame?
- From: George Richards P.E.
- RE: Wood Moment Frame?
- Prev by Subject: RE: Wood Moment Frame?
- Next by Subject: Wood Prestressing Contractors
- Previous by thread: RE: Wood Moment Frame?
- Next by thread: Over or under?