Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

SF Chronicle article re: 6.0 Parkfield eqk

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
For the many of us that complained/nagged/whined about
earthquake seismic design changes from 1994 UBC (and
prior) to 1997 UBC and now 2000 IBC, as the article
says, the data from this latest EQK in Parkfield, CA
may throw a wrench into future building code
(Granted, the local site conditions play a significant
role in the shaking intensity of this particular
event, but still, something to consider...  Also,
wasn't the changes incorporated into 97UBC because of
observations and data collected from '85 Mexico City,
'94 Northridge and even '95 Kobe?)
I'd be curious to hear comments from those on Code
commitees, and any members from EERI.  I have a
feeling that most people will basically pull a Bud
Selig, shrug the shoulders, and say "Yeah, well,
so..." after reading the article.
I particularly like the last comment at the end of the
article...  Sounds engineer-ish...

Don't read into any political mumbo-jumbo with regard
to code development and acceptance...  We all know
that  none of that ever comes into the picture...  LOL

David Topete, PE

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. 

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********