Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Static vs. Simplified Static design[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: Static vs. Simplified Static design
- From: "Dennis Wish" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)verizon.net>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:23:24 -0700
Bill, I too have given up trying to change the engineering community overnight. With that said, you can't ignore that technology has created an avenue for communication. At one time I was accused of not wanting to participate in Committee work because I only wanted to create an online "Virtual" Committee. It seems that others knew my intentions better than I and were convinced that I only wanted to use this exciting new medium of communication to prevent others from traveling and socializing. As our technology evolves, my ideas became more feasible (even this list exceeded 15,000 subscribers and changed from a California based List to an International one - thanks to the support of Bill Lees who was president of SEAOSC at the time). In other words, the List became a platform for discussion that is accessible to committee members who, for the most part, have access if not the knowledge, to retrieve our comments. Unfortunately, those who could change the path of codes lurked in the background and, until Rawn Nelson posted as a legitimate board member of SEAOC his reply to an e-mail on the 97 UBC we were told that the committee chairs had neither the time nor the knowledge to download and review our comments. Still, the truth is that they were listening and they understood our positions in discussion. This led to my invitation to participate in the Round Table discussion on the 97 UBC changes at the 1999 SEAOC Convention in Santa Barbara. I was also invited to the cocktail party prior to the dinner where the preverbal baton was passed from John Tripp to Ron Hamburger - the new SEAOC President. The Seismology Committee was adamant to stay allusive to the professional community and rather than have us submit questions to them for responses to help those of us who had roadblocks understanding the intent and origins of some code changes, they established difficult guidelines of posting our questions and imposed a six month turn-around time for responses. Redundancy in questions was ignored as were most of the questions it seems. Later, as I mentioned in my past post, the state Seismology Committee gave even a moments notice to profiting from our questions. To this date, nothing of substance has changed - they know the discussions we have on this list and if they don't they certainly can retrieve them from the archives or write to one of the more vocal members of our list to see if the discussions were kept (yes I archive some of them that interest me). So let me ask how you can respect a professional organization that has so little respect of their members in professional practice. If their purpose is to assist us in the intent and use of the code, they why don't these same members acknowledge our concerns and address them without pressure from vocal members? Policy changes don't protect the engineering community from frivolous lawsuits. SEA's position paper on various issues related to light framing is of little legal value when challenged. We deserve (I demand) to have a code with less ambiguity and more translational logic so that we know how to design more than a simple and regular commercial structure. Don't forget the tools and information that member of our professional community (and those of us who have worked for hundreds of hours creating tools for their use) simply to allow those on the Seismology Committee to see the problems associated to practical application of full compliance methods in wood framing. The Seismology Committee, evidently, included light-framing as a last moment decision. This is an argument I've stated often because of the simple fact that the full-compliance methods are an impractical solution that disregards both economics of the design and the dynamics of future change expected by change of ownership. I've met with many different people who had aspirations to do more with the wood committee and walked away without instituting anything greater than an opinion. Bill Nelson was the first; I had many discussion with him subsequent to the adoption of the code and his work with Doug Thompson on the ICBO Seismic Design Manual Volume II. Tom Van Dorff even made a trip out to La Quinta (his firm also does plan check for the city out here) to walk the many conventional construction examples that exist in this city as he was not originally convinced that the problem was as wide spread as I claimed. Mel Green called me when he took the reigns and he never followed up on his initial call. Then there was the first large seminar in City of Industry around 1999 where the author of the 10/Lw factor stood up to admit that the values were chosen arbitrarily based on typical masonry and concrete shearwall design. 10/Lw was not unreasonable for these materials, but rare to find on a custom home with windows in each room doors entering these rooms. So we established that this was the first impractical values as it applies to light-framing. Later, we rectified the penalty for the use of cantilevered columns by restricting R of 2.2 only in the line of resistance. However, this was the opinion of the Seismology Committee and was not a revision to the 97 UBC and therefore no protection against potential litigation. This was a rush to judgment as the penalty was an emergency measure by the City of Los Angeles after the collapse of the Northridge Meadows apartment. The truth was that the Meadows was not supported laterally by cantilevered columns at the front, but by gravity load columns only - it was a soft-story and the damage could not be attributed to stiffness failure in the columns. Next came the work that was done by Gary Searer, SE (least we forget the hundreds of hours he spent) to present examples to the Seismology Committee on the errors that resulted in the code on the calculation for the redundancy factor Rho. Once again, this was summarily dismissed with little thanks from the Seismology Committee. About the same time, S. K. Ghosh decided, that the calculations for Rho based on the 10/Lw be left in the code to (and I paraphrase) "force" engineers to comply with more conservative values in light of the damage seen subsequent to Northridge. As I recall, and excuse me if I am wrong, but this even inflamed you to respond strongly to Professor Ghosh. I believe your comments were something to the effect that we were old enough to make your own professional decisions. Unless the respect for light-framing is of little concern to the majority of Seismology Members who never design wood structures (and I know this is not the case with Richard Hess) then point out to me where the Professionals who are suppose to represent the engineering community are using the resources available to them to gain an education on the practical application of light-framed methodology from the hundreds of small office practitioners on this List. It's easier for them to request copies of the posts from Shafat than it is for someone near the Arizona border in a sole-proprietorship business to attend weekly or monthly meetings. I am sorry to be so long winded with this, but I think it is important not to forget the historic efforts that led up to today's discussion. I found conditions impossible, not simply due to the politics and petty power struggles, but the inability to think it feasible to take a step backward in code development and look rationally at what we need to change to achieve a decent code. I don't need Richard Hess or Rick Drake reminding me to participate when this List is so accessible and not restricted by distance. If time is money, then my time is equal to any of those on the committees and what is lacking is respect for the working man. Let me clarify one point - all is not equal when it comes to methodology. The code works fine for Masonry, Concrete and Steel. These have evolved rationally and the adoption of the 97 UBC simply incorporated changes for these materials due to knowledge of weaknesses learned from FEMA documents. However, the light framing methodology is a major change in Chapter 16 as wood was rarely considered by the power practitioners who have the time to volunteer for board work and committee work. Still, if the dollar buys the right to bitch, then the dues we wasted on support for a professional community that promised to serve its professional community had the tables turned. With gas at $2.50 a gallon (+/-) in California, can these committees continue to spend as they have to evolve codes or must they consider more rational means of communication to enhance their performance? Light framing concern is a result of the high cost associated to damages more than an interest in by professionals to design wood structures. Granted, few like me, choose this material because we understand it. Yet when the code changed, our understanding of the performance of wood was challenged and our learning curve cost us a great deal in time and money to come up to speed. The politics between the NAHB, the AIA and the BIA continue to segregate the engineering community by preventing any real change for the good of the building owner. You can't improve structural engineering by patching and painting - this code was a start, but I'm tired of waiting for Seismology members and those on the new ICC committees to awaken to the world of reality. Take it for what its worth, but I simply don't have the respect that you have (and I once had) for those who participate today. Maybe its age, or possibly the fluctuating Dow Jones Average (Stan) - but for what it's worth I feel let down by a profession that should be working to provide practitioners with tools not obstacles. Enough - I'll let it go as I should have once I got my answer to the initial questions (or did I?). Dennis Dennis S. Wish, PE California Professional Engineer Structural Engineering Consultant dennis.wish(--nospam--at)verizon.net http://www.structuralist.net -----Original Message----- From: Bill Allen, S.E. [mailto:T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 4:28 PM To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: RE: Static vs. Simplified Static design Dennis – Me? Statesman? You’ve got to be kidding! I guess I’m going to have to read my drafts more carefully to avoid giving that impression in the future :o). --- 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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- RE: Static vs. Simplified Static design
- From: Bill Allen, S.E.
- RE: Static vs. Simplified Static design
- Prev by Subject: RE: Static vs. Simplified Static design
- Next by Subject: Statistical approach to field inspection
- Previous by thread: RE: Static vs. Simplified Static design
- Next by thread: RE: Static vs. Simplified Static design