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]
The current DoD seismic criteria is actually TI 809-04 rather than TM 5-809-04.  It replaced the  October 1992 version of TM 5-809-10 which was based on, and referred to, the SEAOC Blue Book.  TI 809-04 is roughly based on FEMA 302.  It is available here: http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/techinfo/ti/809-04/ti80904.htm

The 1992 version of TM 5-809-10, while not current for DoD work, is available here:
http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/armytm/tm5-809-10/

-----Original Message-----
From: Tripp Howard [mailto:tripphoward(--nospam--at)yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 8:27 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: SEAOC Blue Book (was Re: CONNECTION DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY)


Gary,

That publication (along with a lot of great stuff) is still
available on the Corp of Engineers TECHINFO website, although it
is now TM 5-809-04.  

Go to http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/techinfo 
Click on "Engineer Publications" on the left
from there select "Instructions (AEI, EI, DBI, TI)"
then select "TI" and scroll down to 809-04




--- Gary Hodgson & Associates <ghodgson(--nospam--at)vaxxine.com> wrote:
> 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 
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 


=====
Tripp Howard

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

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