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]
Personally, I am glad to hear this type of dissatisfaction surfacing
from respected members of the professional community. I applaud George,
Gerard and others who stand on principal and are not intimidated by the
omnipotent members of the seismology committee or those with the
financial resources to control SEA and participate in face-to-face
committee meetings during conventional working hours. 
I apologize to those honest and well intended professionals who
participate and are at the receiving end of my anger. You don't deserve
this and I don't really intend my comments for you. The ones who I do
intend to direct my comments know who they are and will simply write me
off as insane or a professional complainer. However, as Gary Searer
proved nearly two years ago - Rho for many geometric configurations and
building types is simply not an adequate evaluation and penalizes
buildings. What surprises me is that with all of the public
(professional) comment by the thousands who question Rho, the 1998 CBC
still has not resolved to change Rho for residential construction - in
spite of Ron Hamburger's promises.
Enough ranting - as I mentioned privately to George there is no resolve
to this until professionals unite to voice an opinion in writing. If SEA
believes they can ignore their members, then don't renew your dues and
strike them where it hurts - in the financial pocketbook. Do it before I
get kicked off this list that I helped to create. My original hopes were
nothing but dreams and I was an idealist. Little did I know the power of
Apathy.

Regards,
Dennis S. Wish, PE
Join our residential Listservice where we can work together and lobby in
numbers for change:
http://64.119.172.143/mailman/listinfo/residential_structuralist.net


-----Original Message-----
From: George Richards P.E. [mailto:george(--nospam--at)borm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 9:29 AM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
Subject: RE: Residential Design Discussions


I have some very strong opinions on this entire subject, but having a
ton of work I will defer to all but one.

An error written into the law is just that.  An error.  It is BS to
design for or to enforce an error.  As far as I am concerned I put my
assumption of Roe in our calculations.  The legally appointed Building
Official approves our drawings.  His interpretation then is also that
roe is 1.0.  Done. Hell, that is what the learned said in Commerce.  "We
at SEAOC do not know what we wrote into the build code so go ask for the
Building official's ruling."  I was there, took them up on their cop-out
suggestion.

George Richards, P. E. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Wish [mailto:dennis.wish(--nospam--at)verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 7:49 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Residential Design Discussions


Paul,
Exactly my point. If the plan checker is doing his job properly, he
should reject the opinion of SEAOC. This doesn't mean that I agree with
him as I would have designed with the same opinions as you. Still, the
law is the law and if we want something different it is the
responsibility of the professional community to change the law. This
means that we have to make a concerted effort as a group of engineers
united who design residential to identify the problems and to institute
change. 
SEAOC is a professional corporation that someone reminded me, can not
act outside of the welfare of their members. If they refuse to make the
changes, then I would suggest that those members who design residential
structures leave SEA and force change by hitting them where it hurts -
in the renewal of membership fees. I left SEAOC two years ago and don't
intend to rejoin until change has occurred and they act in the best
interest of their members. 
When the issue is related to wood design (residential specifically) then
they should not dilute the "vote" by those who never design wood. They
need to address the issues about residential construction and wood
framing with those who actually design wood structures and who are
active on the Seismology Committee. 

Without unity of members there is nothing left but to be railroaded into
a code that is virtually impossible to comply with in a high risk region
and one that is definitely not in the best interest of the homeowner or
the real-estate industry. Wait until they come knocking on your door to
ask to remodel a recently designed home and there are no existing
framing plans or structural calculations to identify the shear walls and
load path based on rotation through the horizontal diaphragms or some
manner of an envelope solution.

Dennis S. Wish, PE
Join the residential Listservice of the Structuralist.Net
http://64.119.172.143/mailman/listinfo/residential_structuralist.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Feather [mailto:pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:27 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Residential Design Discussions

This is true and I agree with you, however on a recent project in So.
Cal. the plan checker rejected my calculation reference to the SEAOC
position paper and the 1999 Blue Book in restricting 10/lw <=1 stating
"SEAOC and the SEAOC Blue Book are not the code, the UBC is the code and
this is not what is written in the UBC."

As a professional who strives to keep "up to date", I find issues like
this very frustrating.


Paul Feather PE, SE
pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net
www.SE-Solutions.net



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