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]
Charlie Carter wrote:

> I agree with your sentiments. Consider something: I think we could have a
> very efficient code cycle and have everything in it state of the art if
> localities big and small recognize that they do not have expertise needed
> rewrite, revise and modify the national standards that get written.
> those localities should actively participate in the national processes
> result in the IBC, NFPA, AISC, ACI, and other documents. That is actually
> the intent of the model code process.
> The further benefit to that would be that we would not have to master
> and needless differences in design requirements when crossing the street
> from county to county or town to town.
> Charlie

This I agree with whole-heartedly.  I have no problem with a local
jurisdiction requiring a higher wind speed or exposure level, or a higher
seismic category based on their desires for local conditions.  But in many
jurisdictions, we get all forms of arbitrary modifications to allowable
design values or additional requirements to specific code sections or
requirements to apply code sections out of context; modifications that are
inconsistent with the testing, procedures, and design rationales that formed
the basis for the original code specifications.

Paul Feather PE, SE

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********