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]
The state can do what ever it wants.  That is Police Powers.  It is just
that there is no equivalent to the Bar or the AMA in Sacramento to actively
make suggestions.  At least not that I can see from way down here in the
trenches.

George Richards

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard Madden, PE [mailto:gmadden(--nospam--at)attbi.com]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 9:08 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Residential Design Discussions


James,

Are we to expect the members of legislature to understand a provision of
the code that probably every engineer in California has had some
difficulty interpreting? How could they possible comprehend these
documents and vote intelligently. They do whatever is told to them by
expert witnesses at a hearing or by what their campaign contributers
"suggest".

Perhaps others can correct me if the state is allowed to make portions
of the building code model less stringent or removed entirely. (Without
drafting up a new law).

-gerard
Santa Clara, CA



-----Original Message-----
From: Lutz, James [mailto:JLUTZ(--nospam--at)earthtech.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 3:29 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Residential Design Discussions

Seems to me the State of California is sovereign and can do whatever it
likes in terms of modifications to its building code as long as it's ok
with
the legislature.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard Madden, PE [mailto:gmadden(--nospam--at)attbi.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:43 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Residential Design Discussions


Scott,

We have had umpteenth errata to the UBC since it came out. Why can't
ICBO treat this as an errata and give us the 10/lw <=1 at the minimum?
They can strike it from the code next time through (wishful thinking).

They could do this but they won't. ICBO is still in existence and make
money selling this code. Many of the same people who developed the
seismic portions of UBC are/did become a part of the other committees
producing the other codes. We don't even know if they agree there is a
problem (as a consensus), so why should we expect it to ever get fixed?

The California Building Code can only be more stringent that the UBC,
not less. Therefore, they cannot change the RHO provisions until UBC
does it first.

-gerard
Santa Clara, CA

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 1:43 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: Residential Design Discussions

Gerard,

I would suggest that the "lean" be placed toward them being unable to
remove it.  There are two reasons that I think/suggestion this.

One deals with the current legal code in force in California, which is
the
1997 UBC code.  SEAOC does not have the power actually change that code,
only the state government does.  SEAOC could certainly attempt to get
the
state legislature or commission (or who ever in the state officially
handles the California Building Code) to make the change, but they are
just as powerless to actually make the change in the currently
enforcable
code as you are.  What they can do is make changes (or try to...see the
second reason) to future editions of the model building codes that then
the state government may or may not adopt.  Having said all that, it is
certainly possible that they are not bringing the full pressure to bear
on
the state government to make the changes that they could actually bring
to
bear.  If so, then by all means pile on.

The second reason is that while the SEAOC Seismiology committee is still
influential and somewaht powerful in the seismic design world, they are
no
longer the center of the seismic design universe.  In the past, the
SEAOC
Blue Book would become the seismic provisions in the UBC.  This is no
longer true.  The seismic provisions of the IBC and NFPA 5000 will come
by
way of NEHRP and ASCE 7's Seismic Task group (as well as AISC for steel
provisions, ACI for concrete provisions, and ACI/ASCE/TMS for masonry
provisions.  While many of the members of the SEAOC seismology committee
are involved in both NEHRP and ASCE 7, SEAOC no longer controls the code
development process of the seismic design provisions.  Thus, there are
bound to be things that SEAOC Seismology may want that does not make it
into the model building codes.

My point was that while SEAOC may be able to do more (or even do
something), the more likely avenue to get something changed is to
realize
that the state government of California really holds the cards when it
comes to the Rho issue.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Gerard Madden, PE wrote:

> Scott,
>
> 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.
>
> -gerard
> Santa Clara, CA
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 

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