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]
Harold,
I am one of your greatest admirers including your comments below. But
when was the last time that you designed a single family residence or
had taken an interest in the specific challenges that engineers in high
risk areas have that were complicated by the last minute adoption of
wood design exclusively within the full compliance methods exepected of
steel, concrete and masonry? The point is that the code does not work
for this portion of the market that seriously affects home design and
construction in high sesimic regions as well as most of the use where
wind governs and a light roof material is used.
Stop thinking that this is an attack on these individuals and on their
intelligence - it isn't. If you created a method that was flawed, then
you should be held responsible for identifying the extent that your
flawed method will affect the housing or other industry. It is your
responsibility to correct it before it is codified or to address those
who voted for the method to be codified and to explain why it is flawed
and what needs to be changed.
There is no attack - only recognition as to who was in power at the time
the code was set in stone and what these people promised to do to
rectify the situation. Instead, they dismissed it figuring the anger and
frustration would die off and those who design residential structures
would simply comply with the code. Instead - and I say this with
authority as one who has plan checked residential and multi-residential
structures - that 100% of those I have taken in for checking are not
complying with the code and figure they will have to fight it out in
court.
Harold, you don't have the experience in wood design and this is simply
what the issue is about - not those with the financial ability and
freedom to participate in the activity of the profession. 
I've put in nearly twenty years (since 1983) with SEAOC and have been
active in my chapter since 1986 - including the creation of this
Listservice and method of communication. I had higher expectations, but
this is not the issue either. The issue is residential design - pure and
simple and how we can correct a wrong. After nearly five years - the
wrong remains and is a liability to anyone who designs residential
structures. If those who wrote the code intended for engineers to be
forced out of the housing industry, this is the way to do it.

Respectfully,
Dennis S. Wish, PE

-----Original Message-----
From: Sprague, Harold O. [mailto:SpragueHO(--nospam--at)bv.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:35 PM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
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.  FEMA and BSSC were very influential in opening up the
process. One of the major changes in the BSSC process was to provide
more input from areas outside California.  Granted, most of the brain
trust in seismic code development was in California.  But there was also
a strong contingent of "We've always done it that way".

It is an interesting process in which to participate.  The creative
portion takes place in the BSSC Technical Subcommittees and in the BSSC
Provisions Update Committee.  The crossing of the t's and dotting of the
i's takes place in the ASCE 7, and Code Resource Development Committee.
The process is very responsive to change due to research or real world
lessons learned.

We are indeed much better with the participation of Bob Bachman and Ron
Hamburger.  Loring Wylie was another major influence on the BSSC PUC
until he maxed out his number of terms allowed.  For years, Loring was
my weather vane.  If he supported a proposal, it had a high likelihood
of passing the full PUC.  If Loring voted against it, the proposal was
generally doomed.  I developed many proposals that were made better by
the input from Bob Bachman, Ron Hamburger, and Loring Wylie.

Regards,
Harold O. Sprague

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Carter, Charlie [SMTP:carter(--nospam--at)aisc.org]
> Sent:	Monday, September 30, 2002 1:52 PM
> To:	'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject:	RE: IBC "Oops" (Was Residential Design Discussion)
> 
> >In short, if a tree is sick, sometimes it
> >is necessary to cut out the root to make
> >it better. My point is that there is more
> >"power" than you give Bob Bachman and the
> >other members of the SEAOC Seismology Committee
> >who are now involved in the committees that
> >participate in the ICC committees than you
> >give them credit for.
> 
> From my own personal experience, Rick Drake and Scott Maxwell have 
> done a good job of describing how things happen with codes these days.

> Frankly, I'm not sure the tree is sick. It may be healthier than ever 
> as individuals (almost always less wise than groups of qualified 
> individuals) now have less
> power to influence than in the old days.
> 
> Regardless, it will always be the case that the world is run by the 
> people who show up. And perhaps we should be thanking the Bob Bachmans

> and Ron Hamburgers of the world because they always show up and do the

> best they possibly can for us and the public.
> 
> Charlie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********