Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Joining a Residential Listservice. (Was IBC "Oops" and Residential Design Discussion)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Barry,
Great comments and we don't have to agree on everything. This is why I
believe that those who are affected by these issues - even those who are
as bogged down in work and want more time with their families - have a
responsibility to remain involved in the discussions because they tend
to unify those of similar interests. Unfortunately, when the discussions
die down on the SEAINT list, the issues become diluted and lost in the
volume of other issues. I believe that this is an advantage of those
behind the scenes within SEAOC and SEAOSC who owns the server. 

Please remember that I am the co-founder of the SEAINT list and had
goals that I hoped would be realized by this tool. I left SEAOC because
of a number of issues - the most important to me is that the use of this
list is not of any value in informing or helping to change how
structures are designed. It is a means for professionals to obtain help
on a wide variety of topics but who gain frustration when discussing or
attempting to obtain answers related to the work being done by the SEAOC
committees. In fact, the promotion of website for committees to post
their minutes has been a tremendous failure and has, in fact, been
removed from their web pages.

To put it bluntly, those of us who make a living designing buildings
will reach no geat solution on the SEAINT listservice. The most we can
hope for is some opposing comments, criticism for criticizing those who
support this list and a soon to be forgotten frustration that soon dies
out without helping to create change.

I didn't intend this to be an advertisment for the Structuralist.Net
lists, but there is an advantage to uniting professionals who earn their
living designing residential structures into one "Topic-specific" list
that may ultimately work together in order to create a productive
alternative or at least organize an understandable order of priority
where code change occurs.

If none of this works, then I honestly believe that members of SEA who
design residential structures or any light-frameing would be much better
off investing their annual dues in a legal fund to attempt to change the
laws through the court system. It is a terrible thought to have to file
a legal suit against our peer organization in order to institute change,
but if this is the only way then it is a viable option in times where
those who pledge to support the membership choose to ignore the interest
of the members or public.

Dennis
Click on this link to join the Residential list:
http://64.119.172.143/mailman/listinfo/residential_structuralist.net 
If you want a list with links to other topic-specific list services,
please write me at admin(--nospam--at)structuralist.net





Message-----
From: Barry H. Welliver [mailto:barrywelliver2(--nospam--at)earthlink.net] 
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 8:25 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: IBC "Oops" (Was Residential Design Discussion)


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


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