Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: IBC "Oops" (Was Residential Design Discussion)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Rick:

Thank you for your apt synopsis of this current thread and the workings
of the SEAOC input to the code writing process. The ability to see the
forest when standing amongst the trees is a wonderful attribute.

I think the sense of urgency felt in this issue is fueled by the
unfortunate "appreciation" of how easy engineers are set up as targets.
I don't believe the criticisms are totally unwarranted, but in the face
of potential legal action due to non-conformance to the code many feel
something needs be done sooner than later. In a sense, it is the need
for this "emergency" to be corrected that drives the rhetoric. 

There have been several comments about procedures available to amend the
California Building code. Perhaps this is where efforts need to lie not
only for the passionate individuals on this list, but also for our state
association to endorse. If such efforts are underway then let them come
out from hiding as I'm sure there are many who would jump on that
bandwagon as opposed to throwing stones.

Lastly, I differ from Dennis Wish on the means of how to go about
sending a message to SEAOC, but not on the need for the organization to
represent all the interests of its members. I'm prepared to help figure
out why something hasn't been done on some of these issues and lobby for
attention just as I believe others have a right to lobby for their pet
peeves. 

Barry H. Welliver
barrywelliver2(--nospam--at)earthlink.net
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)Fluor.com [mailto:Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)Fluor.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 8:25 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: IBC "Oops" (Was Residential Design Discussion)

There have been several recent criticism (from the usual people) of the
efforts of the SEAOC Seismology Committee.  I believe this is unfair.

Yes, the SEAOC Seismology Committee initiated the  #$*&*  rho factor.
Yes,
it has some problems.  Yes they are aware of it.  The problem that they
have is after they provided input to what is now the 1997 UBC, they were
told that there were to be no supplements to it, because of the 2000
IBC.
>From that point on, the SEAOC Seismology Committee focused on "getting
it
right" for the IBC.  Of course, they were assuming that the 2000 IBC
would
be adopted by the State of California.  And who could anticipate that
politics that resulted in the creation of NFPA 5000.

The reality of today's Structural Codes is that the SEAOC Seismology
Committee cannot work directly with the ICBO for input to the UBC.
Those
days have been gone since 1997.  The process is now much more
cumbersome,
and time consuming.  Structural Provisions in the 2003 IBC and the 2002
NFPA 5000 are based on the 2000 NEHRP Provisions.  SEAOC input must go
through the many BSSC Subcommittees that are responsible for the NEHRP
Provisions.  The SEAOC Seismology Committee (and former members) has
either
members or corresponding members on most of these committees, positioned
to
input and participate in the process.  SEAOC and its four regional
entities
get 5 votes in the NEHRP Process, a significant factor in the process.

By the way, many of the changes to the California Building Code that
have
been recently discussed have been initiated by the efforts of the SEAOC
Seismology Committee.

The SEAOC Seismology Committee members (present, past, and future)
volunteer their time to participate in the code writing process.  Did
you
know that all of the members of the State Seismology Committee are
members
of and appointed by their local SEAOC chapters?  did you know that they
all
are designated as SEAOC representative to at least one industry
committee,
such as AISC, ACI, NEHRP, etc.  That means that each member of the SEAOC
State Seismology Committee is committed to participate on at least 3
committees.  Unless you have volunteered for such an effort, you have no
idea how much of their personal time (not company time as some assume)
is
spent reading research reports, reading code proposals, and discussing
the
many different viewpoints on the issues.  Even though you don't agree
with
everything they do, they do not deserve the personal attacks that some
list
server participants direct at them.

Please continue to identify problems with the current codes as written.
Please continue to offer constructive suggestions on how to remedy the
situation.  This listserver is a valuable resource for identifying
improvements to all of the codes.  But please, provide your input
without
personal attacks on your fellow Structural Engineers.

Regards,

Rick Drake, SE
Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo, CA



------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient 
of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review,
retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any
action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you 
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the 
material from any computer.  Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect 
the views of the company.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------


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