Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: OMRF (R value)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill,

I figured someone would react the way you have.

I merely meant to inform you why the differences exist, that the differences
are not as inconsistent as they might seem to be based on the use of the
same term OMF for two different animals, and that the future holds a less
conflicted process for you. I also tried to make some sense out of why
things keep changing.

I did not intend to imply that you should not follow what you are currently
bound to follow in the applicable building code.

It is the doing of others that the UBC is a dying document. It will be
replaced by the IBC or the NFPA. And it is also the doing of others that
AISC documents will become the basis of seismic steel design because they
are referenced in those IBC and NFPA documents. I will say, though, that I
completely agree with this change because the Building Code "floor" is not
the place to be making changes to structural provisions. Humbly speaking, I
do believe AISC, ACI, TMS, AF&PA, ASCE, etc, who write the steel, concrete,
masonry, wood, load, etc., respectively, documents, do offer the correct
place for such modifications. You may not agree, but IBC and NFPA apparently
do.

Hope this clarifies my intent. And thanks for your care to put the kind
words in with your reply. I've learned a lot from you and others as well --
more than I've ever contributed.

Charlie

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Allen, S.E. [mailto:Bill(--nospam--at)jrma.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:06 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: OMRF (R value)


This is getting pretty ridiculous!

Although I have a great deal of respect for Charlie Carter and AISC, I don't
believe the "Code Gods" have appointed them the RULE OF LAW. Maybe much to
the consternation of Charlie and AISC, the UBC is still the official code of
California. I'm not sure if even the AISC Seismic Provisions have been
officially adopted. It's hard to say since, beginning with the 1997 UBC, no
off year amendments are being offered. What are we designers supposed to do?
Tell our clients that we need to design our OMFs for 29% higher forces
(4.5/3.5) because Charlie Carter tells us to? Even when our CURRENT BUILDING
CODE does not require it? And, what happens if we don't? Do we subject
ourselves to the scrutiny of some "Expert" witness who says we SHOULD HAVE
designed our steel buildings to Supplement No. 2 (available only by download
from the Internet, right?) and it's going to cost the owner $xx to bring it
up to current seismic "philosophy"? What happens to those poor engineers who
are not subscribed to this listserv? How are we supposed to maintain Quality
Assurance in our structural engineering departments?

What has happened to the old fashioned code adoption process (with the
review process of building officials, designers, manufacturers, etc)? Can
AISC just publish a document and just declare it "State of the Art"?

I say let's get our ducks in a row, collect all the good research and get it
submitted to the next edition of the code. In the meantime, lets stand by
the latest printed document. They come out every six years or so (at least
here in CA).

Sheesh!

Bill Allen, S.E.

P.S. - the above "rant" was not meant to be critical of Charlie Carter, but
to be seriously critical of the process. I personally am grateful to the
contributions Charlie has made to this list.


||-----Original Message-----
||From: Carter, Charlie [mailto:carter(--nospam--at)aisc.org]
||Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 9:36 AM
||To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
||Subject: RE: OMRF (R value)
||
||
||>I'm confused of what R value to use.
||>The UBC says the value of R = 4.5 while
||>the 1997 Seismic Provisions, Supplement
||>No. 2 indicates R = 3.5.  So when can
||>we use R = 4.5 and when can we use R = 3.5?
||
||Basically, the UBC provisions are out of date with the AISC Seismic
||Provisions.

<snip>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********