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]

For once, you are 100% correct in your observation. <grin>

You also summed it up better than I could - thanks.

Santa Clara, CA

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill(--nospam--at)] 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:44 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: RE: IBC "Oops" (Was Residential Design Discussion)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sprague, Harold O. [mailto:SpragueHO(--nospam--at)]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 2:35 PM
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
> Subject: RE: IBC "Oops" (Was Residential Design Discussion)
> Charlie's take on this is accurate.  There were impediments to
> seismic code
> development in the old process.  Ron Hamburger and Bob Bachman were
> instrumental in moving seismic code development into the FEMA
> sponsored BSSC
> process.

I can't speak with any authority as to this, since I and my 12 year old
daughter both have about equal experience in the seismic engineering
development process, but I have an observation.

It sounds as though those who are making these statements, including
Charlie and others, are actually talking around the point that Dennis is
trying to make.

I don't think Dennis has said that the entire code development process
"corrupted," or that there is NO good work coming out of the various
committees who have input into that process.

If I read him correctly, I believe he is limiting his criticism strictly
the provisions in the UBC 97 that seriously handicap light-frame wood
structural design, forcing design of uneconomical structures to a degree
that, if similarly handicapping provisions were insisted upon in
steel design, say, there would be a tremendous outcry from those who
those structures as well. But because the light-frame wood design market
not the "mainstream" of structural engineering design, the loophole
open and any attempts to close it are met with a stone wall.

If my observation is not accurate, please forgive me, but I have taken
to try to follow Dennis' rants over the past week. He is incensed that,
order to design wood frame structures--especially shearwalls--reasonably
economically, the designer has in essence to break the law, or face
work to those who ARE willing to break the law.

For someone like Dennis whose practice is firmly grounded in wood
residential and light-frame commercial work, that is an impossible
to be in. But because those involved in seismic code development have
areas of interest at heart, it's not being addressed.

I hope I've got that right, and I hope that we can all see through
fit of pique to the underlying cause.

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