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]
Scott,

I "choose" not to participate in the BSSC and other committees because
of the following:

I run my own business and am the only employee. Anytime I am not
working, I am not making money to support myself, family, and business.
I already work a tremendous number of hours per week (80+), so my
schedule is full.

You obviously don't think it is a problem that "breaking the law" (and
I'm not talking Judas Priest here) is what most engineers designing wood
framed structures in California are currently doing every single day.
You can't keep going back to the IBC / BSSC argument because those codes
don't apply now or in the foreseeable future. 

I suggest you take a look at the "volunteers" in these committees and
see who employs them. How many come from firms or organizations with
fewer than 10 employees? How many of them come with funding out of their
own pocket? How many of them have designed ANYTHING real in 5 years (I'm
talking did the calcs and drawings), and how many of them have designed
a house? Very few I'd guess.

It is my understanding that SEAOC has a few seats on the ASCE-7
committee. AS an engineer in California who pay dues to this
organization, who am I/we supposed to bitch to?

Just like Jesse Ventura used to say (before he was an elected and
respected member of society) "I'm callin it like I see it Gorilla"

Respectfully,
-gerard
Santa Clara, CA

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu] 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 8:43 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: IBC "Oops" (Was Residential Design Discussion)

Bill,

I have understood Dennis' point from the beginning, but feel that while
his point is potentially valid (I probably know less about residential
wood framing, seismic or not, than you) it is irrelevent or off the mark
(that is not quite right but I can think of a better way to say it right
now).

As I see it, there are two core issues that Dennis raises.

The first is that there is a flaw (or many flaws) in the current 1997
UBC,
and thus the California Building Code.  I am not really in a position to
agree or disagree with that assessment since I am not very knowledgable
in
residential wood design.  I would say that I would tend to believe
Dennis'
view since he _IS_ knowledgable in that area.  This is the immediate
problem.  These flaws would have been created by the SEAOC Seismology
committee, whether intentional (I doubt) or not.  I have understood that
this is Dennis' position from the begining, but the unfortunate truth is
a
"so what".  At this point ranting at the creators of the problem will
not
likely solve this immediate problem since it is now longer within their
realm of power to change.  Assuming that you could get SEAOC Seismology
to
fix teh problem, and that ICBO would put forth a new or updated UBC, you
are still faced with the ultimate fact that the state of California
still
decides what will be the state building code.  So the point is that
beating SEAOC Seismology into making a change does not directly solve
the
problem AT ALL.  It may help but there are still many other steps that
must occur even if that first step happened.

The second issue is the longer term problem.  This is the point that
Dennis raises that many of these individuals may not really understand
the
issues of residential wood design.  He believes that SEAOC Seismology
has
not represented those who design residential wood structures well.  He
may
be correct, and is likely correct (he is in a much better position to
determine that than I).  But again, battering SEAOC Seismology is to a
large degree a wasted effort since they no longer directly control the
development of the seismic provisions in future codes.  He is better off
directing his efforts toward that BSSC (which is why I encouraged him to
particpate with BSSC TS 7, although some of his issues are really better
aimed at TS 2 [Rho and analysis using flexible/rigid diaphrams] or TS 10
which deals with residential/low rise structures) and/or ASCE 7.

The point is that I think Dennis should be vocal if he is williing to be
part of the process.  I feel that anyone one has the right to be
critical
of the process, although I have to admit that I also believe that
someone
who choses not to participate in the process has less of a right to be
critical.  This is not Dennis.  He has chosen to be involved with BSSC
7.

The result is that while I believe Dennis is perfectly within his right
to
voice his concerns, his efforts will likely have very little in the way
of
results largely because the targets of his efforts have much less
control
ofver the situation than he gives them credit for.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Bill Polhemus wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sprague, Harold O. [mailto:SpragueHO(--nospam--at)bv.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 2:35 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.
>
> 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
code
> development process, but I have an observation.
>
> It sounds as though those who are making these statements, including
Harold,
> 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
is
> "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 to
> 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
structural
> steel design, say, there would be a tremendous outcry from those who
design
> those structures as well. But because the light-frame wood design
market is
> not the "mainstream" of structural engineering design, the loophole
remains
> 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
pains
> to try to follow Dennis' rants over the past week. He is incensed
that, in
> order to design wood frame structures--especially
shearwalls--reasonably and
> economically, the designer has in essence to break the law, or face
losing
> 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
position
> to be in. But because those involved in seismic code development have
other
> 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
Dennis'
> fit of pique to the underlying cause.
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********