Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: SEAOC Blue Book (was Re: CONNECTION DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Coming from an area of relatively low seismic risk, I 
have not pursued a lot of literature on the subject.  
This blue book looks interesting - how do I go about 
getting a copy and how much does it cost?

On the same subject, I purchasd a US publication TM 5-
809-10 in the early seventies called "Seismic Design 
for Buildings" published by the Departments of the 
Army, the Navy and the Air Force in Apr 73.
I thought it a practical guide and used it several 
times.  I was told it is out of publication.  Does 
anyone know if this correct or is there another similar 
document?


On 10 Dec 2002 at 8:50, Paul Feather wrote:

> I will second Thomas' statements regarding the blue book being a "must read" for anyone who is involved in seismic design.  The blue book provisions and commentary have traditionally been a state of the art discourse on seismic design.  Many of the leading concepts and methodologies (base 
isolation, passive energy dissipation, performance based design....) are discussed in detail and developed in subsequent editions long before adoption or publication in the model codes. 
> 
> I have always found the blue book to be a testament to the high standards and professionalism of the volunteers and committee members of the Structural Engineers Association of California, this publication alone is worth the continued support and membership.
> 
> I must admit that though I have always maintained my membership in SEAOC, I have not always given the time and commitment I should.  With all the controversy and recent discourse regarding the seismology committee and SEAOC (rho factors etc..), I for one would like to take a moment and simply 
say "Thank You" to the members who do contribute so much to our profession. 
> 
> I do not know the intended future of the blue book with the passing of the UBC and the changes in the code process.  I would be interested to hear from anyone more involved in the current organization if they would share their views on whether the blue book will continue to be published and the 
direction the publication may take.
> 
> Paul Feather PE, SE
> pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net
> www.SE-Solutions.net
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: THunt(--nospam--at)absconsulting.com 
>   To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org 
>   Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:28 AM
>   Subject: Re: CONNECTION DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY
> 
> 
> 
>   Gail, 
> 
>   Part of the answer here is about timing and the procedures for writing the Uniform Building Code (UBC).  It starts (use to but no longer with the IBC) with the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) producing their seismic "Recommended Requirements" for inclusion in Chapter 
16.  ICBO, which compiles and produces the UBC, reviews these recommendations and historically would accept most but not all of the them.  As example, the seismic ductility factor "R" was originally split into two components.  This part did not make it in the final UBC however probably about 99 
percent of everything else did.  The proposed code language "Recommended Requirements" are then followed by a very extensive commentary.  For anyone doing seismic design per the UBC this commentary is a real must read.  The commentary is then followed by what I would call special topics such as a 
detail review and history of the near source factor, "R" factors, dynamic analysis, lessons learned from the Northridge earthquake, performance-based design, etc., etc. 
> 
>   Hope this helps, 
> 
>   Thomas Hunt, S.E. 
>   ABS Consulting 
> 
> 
> 
>        GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com 
>         12/09/2002 06:31 PM 
>         Please respond to seaint 
> 
>                
>                 To:        seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org 
>                 cc:         
>                 Subject:        Re: CONNECTION DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY 
> 
> 
> 
>   In a message dated 12/9/2002 2:50:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, THunt(--nospam--at)absconsulting.com writes: 
> 
> 
>   The commentary to this section from the SEAOC "Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary C108.2.2 reads "In some geographical regions, 
> 
> 
>   I don't design steel and I don't live in California, so maybe I am missing something, but how can you have "Recommended Requirements"?  Aren't things usually either recommendations OR requirements? 
> 
>   Gail S. Kelley, P.E. 
> 
> 
> 



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