Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: what's wrong?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Calcs by hand?

 

8^O

 

Are you actually admitting that you have a pencil on your desk Steve?

 

:o)

 

My cold shower this week has been post installed anchors compliant with IBC 2006.

 

Sheesh!

 

IMO, this development is an embarrassment to the profession.

 

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.

ALLEN DESIGNS

Consulting Structural Engineers
 
V (949) 248-8588 F(949) 209-2509

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Gordin [mailto:sgordin(--nospam--at)sgeconsulting.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:10 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: what's wrong?

 

List,

 

2006 IBC and 2007 CBC, Section 1802.2.7 refers literally to "Seismic Design Category D, E, and F" per "Section 1613."

The latter section  refers to SDS A, B, C, and D (of course, no E & F).  However, the Site Class can be designated as A through F.  I guess, the above section should read "Seismic Design Category D."

 

May be it is just too late, and I am not thinking straight.  If not - was this annoying error somehow corrected? I did not see this in the errata for the printings 1, 2, and 3... 

 

And why on earth would somebody come up with this extremely confusing idea of two sets of identical designations intended to be repetitively used in the same sections of the code?  I mean, confusing not only to the practicing engineer, but, apparently, to the code writers themselves?

 

 

Finally, how are your spreadsheets moving along?  My spreadsheets for the new code are about three times longer than the previous ones.  Because of such length, as well as an extreme amount of weirdly named coefficients, the analysis is hard to follow, and the physical sense of the problem is all but lost.  

 

IBC made it all but impossible to do calcs by hand.  In the long run, this is not good.

 

Oh well...

 

V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA