Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Static vs. Simplified Static design

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Richard -

It's my understanding (based on my *vast* experience consisting of a grand
total of attending one Code Committee meeting) that the Code Committee
defers all seismic related issues to the Seismology Committee. Isn't that
right?

But, that's an interesting thought. Can you imagine all of us "small guys"
showing up at the committee meetings with a well detailed plan and list of
issues which are considered to be (aka an agenda), how can I say this, not
well representative in the buildings we design (how's that for PC speak?)?
What chaos that would be! I visualize that at the end of the day, the
seismic code is re-written to read as follows:

Section 1626 Earthquake Design
This section is new.
1626.1. Pick a base shear coefficient that seems reasonable _to the EOR_
(the last three words are key).
1626.2. Pick a vertical distribution that makes sense _to the EOR_
(triangular, rectangular, parabolic, sinusoidal, etc.)
1626.3. Pick a vertical distribution that makes sense _to the EOR_ (RDA,
FDA, envelope, etc.).
Now, with the tedium out of the way...
1626.4. Detail a well defined load path from roof to foundation.
1626.5. Perform enough Structural Observations to ensure the load path is
actually present (I know, a radical concept).
1626.6. Portions of the structure used to resist earthquakes shall be
constructed by licensed contractors who have received a certificate of
completion of the "Seismic Construction Seminar" from the State Contractor's
board.
End of Earthquake Design.

And then I snap out of it and realize it was just a dream.

Sigh...

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)	
ALLEN DESIGNS	
Consulting Structural Engineers	
http://www.AllenDesigns.com	
V (949) 248-8588	 .	 F (949) 209-2509	

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hess [mailto:rlhess(--nospam--at)hesseng.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 6:13 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Static vs. Simplified Static design

Why don't you go to the SEAOSC Code Committee meeting on 7/20 to discuss it.
You could have an influence on what goes into future codes.  Call Carl
Sramek, Chair.

Richard Hess
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <sscholl2(--nospam--at)juno.com>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:28 PM
Subject: RE: Static vs. Simplified Static design


>
> This well thought out and well written. Now if we could only get those on
the Code Committees to incorporate these ideas we would be in hog heaven ( a
term from my original home country in the corn fields of Illinois).
>
> Stan Scholl,P.E.
> Laguna Beach, CA
 



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