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]
I agree, the process could be much more efficient than it has in the past.
However, I would like to believe that contributors to the process go beyond
industry representatives and "the good ol' boys" and include significant
scrutiny in particular areas of the code. One example would be review by the
Seismology Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC)for seismic design components of the code (FEMA 350 comes to mind
here).

One of the problems I see of adopting a document "by reference", is that
it's very difficult, if not impossible, to keep track of what version of
that document is actually being adopted. For example, if a published code
has adopted the Supplement No. 1 of the Seismic Provisions published by
AISC, does that mean that Supplement No. 2 is acceptable/adopted by
inference? I hope not.

Regards,

Bill Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)


||-----Original Message-----
||From: Carter, Charlie [mailto:carter(--nospam--at)aisc.org]
||Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 5:26 AM
||To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
||Subject: RE: OMRF (R value)
||
||
||>Something to think about for those
||>of you not familiar with the Southern
||>California landscape: there are OVER
||>90 BUILDING DEPARTMENTS here! Some
||>have adopted legislation making them
||>closer to "State of the Art" (whatever
||>that is), others are just happy to
||>have a PE stamp on a set of plans.
||
||Bill,
||
||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 to
||rewrite, revise and modify the national standards that get
||written. Rather,
||those localities should actively participate in the national
||processes that
||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 subtle
||and needless differences in design requirements when crossing
||the street
||from county to county or town to town.
||
||Charlie
||
||
||******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
||*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********