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]

First of all, as I've told you privately, I think you did a marvelous job as
SEAOSC President the past year. I can't recall the last time the President's
message has been so thought provoking and interesting reading.

However, I'm surprised and a little disappointed that you use this method
(and this forum) to somehow either goad me into committee participation or
to shut me up. You and I have had fairly extensive private correspondence
where I have expressed a willingness to serve on a committee. You've seen me
attend committee meetings, so I have to believe you realize my comments were
sincere. However, in my correspondence, I did express concern about my
ability to participate due to the fact that I'm a one man shop and the
committee meetings are an hour away (with good traffic). There were other
issues as well, but I'll leave those to our private dialog.

I find it offensive to receive a comment suggesting that, if I am not on a
committee, I'm not entitled to an opinion. Believe me, there's a lot of
hours in committees which do not result in any change. Participating does
not equate to change, particularly with regards to the seismic provisions.

My second paragraph, the one which was the subject of your response, was as
much as dark humor as much as an expression of frustration. All of our hands
are significantly tied with regards to change because not only are we are
stuck with an antiquated code but also future code of California is yet
unknown. Whether it goes NFPA or IBC, the seismic provisions are now
national and I'm skeptical that a handful of people sitting in the
conference room in Whittier are going to have much of an effect; certainly
not on the types of structures I design and certainly not if I'm the only
one (or one of the minority) who has a contrary opinion on the development
of the code.

I must say, to their credit, SEAOSC has taken the initiative to publish
position papers on various topics related to wood framed construction
(rigidity vs. flexible, cantilevered columns, etc.). Unfortunately, there
are many engineers who feel that these position papers won't be an adequate
defense against an aggressive "expert" witness.

So, if your comment was intended to inspire committee participation, you
might consider another strategy. If it was to stop me from "complaining"
(aka, expressing an opinion), you've failed there as well.

You never did respond to the first issue. Unless I'm mistaken, the Code
Committee does not address seismic issues. If I'm incorrect in that, please
let me know.


T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)	
Consulting Structural Engineers	
V (949) 248-8588	 .	 F (949) 209-2509	

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hess [mailto:RLHess(--nospam--at)] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:43 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Static vs. Simplified Static design

Quit dancing around the issue.  If you want to have an effect, participate.
If not, just complain that someone else is not doing it right.


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********