Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: OMRF (R value) (code development process)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Ben,

I would suggest that you also forward on your suggestion to ACI (and ASCE
and others).

This is because I think that you forgot two other possibilities as to why
there are not too many code officials on the material standards
committee:

1) I know that it is difficult for some of the organizations/committees to
find interested code officials that are both qualified AND willing to put
that time and effort into participating.  Working on these committees can
be a serious time drain at times and _DO_ require a serious commitment,
which not everyone is willing to make.  For example, it is basically a
requirement to attend all the committee meetings if you are on ACI 318.
ASCE 7 does not have the same requirement, but then this presents some
problems for them when voting time comes around.  ASCE 7 has _SO_ many
members, many which tend to specialize in one area such as snow or wind or
seismic, that for many votes they get a lot of people whole abstain (you
_ARE_ required to respond to votes or you are out of the committee),
especially on seismic related provisions that are voted on,  resulting in
a lot of things that don't pass simply because the correct yes/no/abstain
ratio are not met due to the large number of abstains.  I do know that the
code official participation is an issue for ASCE...part of their concensus
requirements for balance requires code officials on the committee.  I
believe that they have struggled at times with this requirement since
someone can get tossed from the committee for not participating in the
votes.  If the person gets tossed is a code official, then it can change
the balance percentages, which can then require someone else getting
tossed from the committee who _WAS_ participating in the votes.

2) I believe that not too many code officials voluteer to work on the
technical committees.  While this will not effect ACI 318 since the
committee members are limited in number and essentially selected by the
chair with input from others, it certainly effects the REST of ACI's
committees.  In general, if you don't apply to be on a committee in ACI,
you aren't going to be on a committee.  This is especially true of ASCE
committees.  ASCE's policy/rule for committees is basically that if you
are an ASCE member and you ask to be on the committee, you are on the
committee (unless, I believe it is totally, completely obvious that you
are not qualified).

To me, this is similar to my concern when I see people complain about not
knowing that "this" or "that" changed...while organizations and committees
can do a better job of putting out a lot of their information, it is a
two-way street.  So, sometimes it might be necessary for individuals to be
a little proactive and search out the proposed changes or find committees
that they could help on and ask to be involved in the committees.  It is
not always necessary for the committees and organizations to come to us.
OK, enough of my soup box (for now)...I can feel people wanting to throw
things at me! <grin>

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Yousefi, Ben wrote:

> Charlie
> 
> I'd like to throw my hat in the ring! However, To be more fair to the
> process and for you (or any other code development committees) to get the
> best qualified people, I suggest working closely with the model code groups
> such as ICC and ICBO. If they do an announcement and ask for interested
> parties, I am sure you'll get a good number of suitable applicants.
> 
> Thanks
> Ben Yousefi, SE
> San Jose, CA
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carter, Charlie [mailto:carter(--nospam--at)aisc.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 8:19 AM
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject: RE: OMRF (R value) (code development process)
> 
> 
> Ben, thank you for the suggestion. Is there anyone from code enforcement
> you'd like me to consider for this role?
> 
> Charlie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yousefi, Ben [mailto:Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)ci.sj.ca.us]
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 10:22 AM
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject: RE: OMRF (R value) (code development process)
> 
> 
> Charlie
> 
> Conspicuously absent from this list are engineers on the code enforcement
> side of the equation. Those are the people who will have to actually
> understand the provisions and review and approve the design and detailing on
> a project. Leaving them out of this process, in my opinion sends 2 possible
> messages:
> 
> 1- They are not qualified (don't know anything) hence they don't belong to
> the process.
> 
> 2- Who the heck cares about the review (they are a bunch of bureaucrats
> anyway)
> 
> I know in a good portion of the country that's the prevailing attitude. But
> out here we work closely and cooperatively with the designers and try to
> achieve an end result that protects public safety with the most cost
> effective design.
> 
> In my opinion, the most alarming part of the new trend in code adoption is
> going with the so called "consensus" process. This virtually locks the code
> officials, and possibly many other interested parties (non-good ol' boys),
> out of the process. And on the few occasions that some of them get appointed
> to these committees, unfortunately they are the ones who have the least
> understanding of the nuts and bolts of these provisions and are just
> appointed because they are people who are known to be "accommodating" and
> least expected to rock the boat.
> 
> Ben Yousefi, SE
> san Jose, CA
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carter, Charlie [mailto:carter(--nospam--at)aisc.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 11:39 AM
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject: RE: OMRF (R value)
> 
> 
> >... 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.
> 
> I agree and think you need to know that the AISC Committee on Specification,
> especially its Task Committee that writes the AISC Seismic Provisions, is
> anything but a bunch of industry representatives and good ol' boys. Read the
> names:
> 
> Chairman Jim Malley, Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco, CA -- Chairman
> 
> Vice-Chairman Mark Saunders, Rutherford and Chekene Consulting Engineers,
> San Francisco, CA
> 
> Roy Becker, Becker and Pritchett Engineers, Mission Viejo, CA
> Greg Deierlein, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
> Rick Drake, Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo, CA
> Mike Engelhardt, U of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
> Roger Ferch, The Herrick Corporation, Pleasanton, CA
> Tim Fraser, Canron, Bellingham, WA
> Subash, Goel, U of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
> John Gross, NIST, Gaithersburg, WA
> Jim Harris, J.R. Harris and Co., Denver, CO
> Pat Hassett, Hassett Engineering, Castro Vallet, CA
> Cindi Lanz, AISC, Chicago, IL
> Roberto Leon, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
> Bob Lyons, Brandow and Johnston, Los Angeles, CA
> Hank Martin, AISI, Auburn, CA
> Clarkson Pinkham, S.B. Barnes Associates, Los Angeles, CA
> Rafael Sabelli, Dasse Design, Inc., San Francisco, CA
> Tom Sabol, Engelkirk and Sabol, Los Angeles, CA
> Kurt Swensson, KSI Structural Engineers, Atlanta, GA
> Nabih Youseff, Nabi Yousseff and Associates, Los Angeles, CA
> 
> If anything, that list does not have enough industry representation!
> 
> 
> >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).
> 
> The Committee above WAS in large part the SEAOC Seismology Committee of
> about a decade ago. People from that time not still with the AISC Committee
> are either retired or dead. They all came into the AISC process at that time
> together. Plus, the modern-day SEAOC Seismology Committee is now represented
> on the AISC TC 9 by people like Bob Lyons and Rafael Sabelli.
> 
> Bill, I don't mean to keep making this a point and counterpoint exchange. I
> just want you and others to understand that AISC is offering what I think is
> exactly the process you are asking for.
> 
> 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 
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 
> 


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