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,
You just struck a nerve with me over the dribble that you spouted about
participation. We are participating - every day. We are discussing these
concerns and issues in far more detail than you or any code member would
discuss with the professional community in a given meeting. 
You, my friend, and the code committees are the people who are failing to
participate. You are failing to participate with those on this one list that
makes up a community of more than 15,000 professionals world wide and who
are unable to travel the distance to sit over a table waiting to be heard
(as we did after the adoption of the 97 UBC) only to be told that there is
not enough time to be heard or not to respond to our questions. 

The SEAOC Seismology Committee was unfortunate enough to post minutes from
meetings that occurred after the 97 UBC was adopted. At the time, Seismology
Committee refused to participate in the discussions on line and set the
rules for how questions were to be submitted, how long it would take for the
Seismology to respond AND that redundant questions would be ignored. 

What did the Seismology Committee respond to? Virtually nothing that was any
less ambiguous than what is written in the code was offered as a reply to
questions. At one of the Seismology Committee meeting, it was suggested that
the Q&A sessions could be used to produce revenue for SEAOC - Seismology
Committee considered (and in a moment of "professional" clarity) decided it
was not correct to charge the community for questions necessary to qualify
or define their intent in the code for light-framing.

So, Mr. Hess, how dare you ridicule Bill Allen or any of us who have paid
our dues as both members and as participants in many committees including
the one that created this list - from not participating in code committee or
wood committee (sub-committee) discussions when the dialog is occurring on
the SEAINT List and few if any of the busy professionals in these committees
have the time to read our posts and respond either individually or in total
to a completed thread. The tables are turned as there are more engineers
outside the major metropolitan area's who feel  their contribution on this
list should be printed, copied, forwarded or in any other simple manner -
distributed to your committee members for review and consideration. Instead,
the reply is the same it has been for years - "Participate or Shut UP!"

Dennis S. Wish, PE


Dennis S. Wish, PE


California Professional Engineer

Structural Engineering Consultant

dennis.wish(--nospam--at)verizon.net

http://www.structuralist.net

 


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

Bill,
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.

Richard
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Allen, S.E." <T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: Static vs. Simplified Static design


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




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

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.717 / Virus Database: 473 - Release Date: 7/8/2004
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.717 / Virus Database: 473 - Release Date: 7/8/2004
 


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