Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Residential Design Discussions

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

I have the meeting minutes from Seismology committee meetings, they have
definitely looked at it and know it needs changing, but they are either
Unable or unwilling to REMOVE it from the code, let alone cap 10/lw<=1.
Some want significant change, some want no change. Unfortunately, I
don't think they post the meeting minutes anymore for us to see. It has
been 5 years that this has been in the code, and 2 years since Gary
Searer's paper was delivered.

I think they are unwilling to touch it because those that created it
didn't think it through enough as Gary Searer proved. Too much emphasis
is given to RHO when determining seismic forces. The IBC has made slight
improvements to the RHO, but here in CA, we can't use it yet nor does
there seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel saying we will ever.

Rho should not have ever been introduced into the code, let alone have
the potential to raise design forced by 50% because I have a short
shearwall yet I could have a mass irregularity or soft story and just do
a dynamic analysis and not be subject to the penalty.

It is an idea with definite merit and I'm sure developed with the best
intentions, but I am sure it was a mistake to put it in the 97 UBC.

Santa Clara, CA

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********