Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Design ground accelerations

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Fire the geotech and find one who will design to the minimum code
requirements, not beyond them.

-----Original Message-----
From: G Manandhar [mailto:grm(--nospam--at)engineer.com]
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 11:17 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re:Design ground accelerations




The code is the minimum requirement.   Additional requirements per the
geotechnical report would have to be considered if they are more stringent
than the minimum code requirements.  I agree with Mark that the geotechnical
engineer should not require performance based design unilaterally; however
once it is documented, I believe the plan checker is within bounds when he
asks for performance based design.  After all, the geotech report is part of
the project document.

Also, should the engineer be sued at a later date, can he defend himself as
to why he did not follow the geotech report.  After all, the client paid for
the geotech report and handed the report to you before you quoted your fees.
What would your defense be if the client insisted that he gave you the
geotech report and expected you to follow the geotech?s recommendation (and
since you did not raise the issue of performance based design, he believed
your fees included performance based design)? 

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Gilligan <MarkKGilligan(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:48:07 -0400
To: "seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: Subject: Re:Design ground accelerations


> While it is the geotech's responsibility to characterize the ground motion
> he should do this in the context of the requirements of the building code.

> The need to perform a performance based design is not something that is
> within the providance of the geotechnical engineer to unilaterally
require.
>  Baring a requirement for special analysis in the building code, the
> structural engineer is only required to undertake  special design
> procedures if his/her contract with the Owner so requires.
> 
> It is likely that the geotechnical engineer in this instance has only
> reported the expected ground motion.
> 
> The structural engineer should challange the geotechnical engineer if he
> sees something that does not make sense.  The geotech is just another
> consultant and does not exist in a vacum.
> 
> Occasionally some plan reviewers will interpret code provisions in ways
> never intended by the authors of the code.  It is possible that this is
> what has happened.  When this happens it is totally appropriate to
> challange the reviewer.  While the building official has wide lattitude he
> should use restraint when going beyond the intent of the code and the
> standard of practice in the profession.
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Lynn, 
>  
> As I have worked as a plan reviewer, I can tell you that your reviewer is
> correct from his point of view. You as a structural designer should
conform
> with code and input data. The geotech report is exactly input data for you
> and it is your problem to show compliance with both code and input data.
It
> is beyond structural designer's power to judge why the geothech engineer
> has included such a requirement.
>     From your point of view you are trying to avoid time consumption for
> the PBD, as far as you have a design project ready. If you can't get along
> with the reviewer you should ask the building official for clarification
> whether compliance to UBC is enough or evidence that the building can
> withstand prescribed accelerations should be provided. When you receive
his
> answer -apply it in design documentation and act accordingly.
>  
> HTH
> Georgi Stoyanov 
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> 
> 

-- 
__________________________________________________________

Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com

http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup



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