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]
Title: Message
I think the big issue might be related to the time it takes to get a report done, as I would imagine that the owner might want to get a couple of proposals from competing companies, choose who to go with, get all of the contractual issues worked out, then actually have the work done.  The foundation is of the utmost importance, certainly, but to require a soils report across the board ... especially for light-frame/single-story/non-expansive-soil-supported structures ... seems sort of harsh.
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Gordin [mailto:sgordin(--nospam--at)sgeconsulting.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:53 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: what's wrong?

Dave,
 
This is exactly how it was interpreted at the Santa Monica seminar.  Section 1804 is just a guidance material. 
 
Obviously, my clients are not all quite happy.  At the same time, the soil investigation requirement does not seem as such a bad idea.  I was taught to never try to save money on foundations.
 
The soil investigation requirement excludes most of construction (occupancy category 2, SDS<0.5, SD1<0.2), and represents a long-term and reusable investment.
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Adams
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 07:32
Subject: RE: what's wrong?

Steve,
 
I'm not sure I'm following what you are seeing.  Section 1613.5.6 provides guidance for determining which structures are in SDC E or F ... but maybe there is something else, I'm not sure.
 
On a related note ... how are most folks interpreting 1802.2.7?  Automatic soils report for anything and everything (equipment foundations, metal building foundations, simple wood-frame residences)?  Does 1804 then only apply to SDC A & B?  Seems like a HUGE shift.  This has probably been discussed and I've missed it (sorry).
 

Dave K. Adams, P.E., S.E.
LANE ENGINEERS, INC.
Tulare, CA  93274

 
 
 
-----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