Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: IRC Braced Panels

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I didn't say that an IRC job is appropriate in Hurricane country, it isn't,
and is prohibited by the IRC itself, I would not expect that those houses
performed very well.

Again, because building departments aren't doing their job by restricting
inappropriate use of the IRC doesn't mean there are no appropriate uses for
the IRC.

I don't really think we are in disagreement, but my main beef is those of us
trying to make the IRC pencil out.  IT WON'T, but that doesn't mean that it
can't be used safely and with a reasonable expectation of performance.

Ted Ryan



----- Original Message -----
From: "Dmitri Wright" <dmitri(--nospam--at)pciengineers.com>
To: "Seaint" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: IRC Braced Panels


> Subject: Re: IRC Braced Panels
>
> Ted Ryan wrote:
>
> >Again, missing the point.
>
> Respectfully, Ted, I think you are missing the point, 3 of them!
>
>
> >Regardless of whether the IRC calc's out or not,
> >homes built in a manner consistent with the IRC generally perform well in
> >high seismic or wind events.
>
> OK, Dennis shot this one down for me already, so I don't need to
elaborate.
> I would be interested in hearing from some of the list members in Florida
> who have surveyed the damage of the recent hurricanes, to see how well the
> prescriptive structures performed.
>
> >The IRC takes into account the redundancies
> >that we aren't able to in design.
>
> Why are we not able to account for these redundancies?  Why do we neglect
> them in our designs and then tack on a very large safety factor?  The IRC
> and field observation are telling us that we are designing very
> conservatively when using the IBC.  The key question is,  at what point do
> we strike the balance between an economical design, and a socially
> acceptable factor of safety?  The writers of the IBC are striking the
> balance for high occupancy and high rise public buildings.  The writers of
> the IRC are striking the balance for single family residences.  As long as
> the goals are different, the results will be inconsistent.
>
>
> >The applicability of the IRC is fairly
> >restricted so that it isn't used in situations where an engineered design
> >is
> >warranted.
>
> I want to work on the planet the you live on!  As I noted in my previous
> post, the IRC is very often allowed "in situations where an engineered
> design is
> warranted".  Just look at from the political point of view. Home builders
> provide jobs, tax revenues, homes for families, and an increased tax base
to
> communities.  They are well organized, have a strong lobby, and deep
pockets
> for plenty of lawyers. (I wish I could say those things about the
> engineering community!)  I don't think anyone would disagree that IRC
> designs are less expensive to build, thus increasing the builders profits,
> and providing lower cost housing to the community.  When the builders come
> to talk to the small community building officials, they carry a big carrot
> and a big stick.  Is there any wonder that only the most obvious
violations
> are flagged as not meeting IRC.
> As engineers, and as the only group who really understands the safety and
> performance implications of the codes, it is up to us to make the public
> aware of these issues.  Perhaps the best way to do this is through their
> pocket books.  The insurance industry is also well organized, has a strong
> lobby, and has deep pockets for plenty of lawyers.  If they were aware of
> the difference in the cost of potential claims between IBC designs and IRC
> designs, they would charge higher premiums for the IRC designs.  This
would
> bring a balancing factor to the economics of applying the code
requirements.
> As much as I hate insurance companies (no offence to anyone who works for
> one, a job is a job), I think they are an ally to the engineering
community
> by creating an incentive for structures to be designed for performance and
> safety.
>
> Ok, I'll step down from the soap box now.
>
> Dmitri Wright
> Portland, OR
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********