Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Anchors

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: Message
Dave,
 
There is no doubt in anybody's mind that we DID have a lot of soil-related failures/damage, of varying extent, of both seismic and non-seismic nature.  From this perspective, IMO, there is some justification or benefit to soils investigation.  However, the "ad nausium" chat on the subject really does not matter. For now, this is the law of the land. 
 
The anchorage is a different matter, with no "bodies" whatsoever.  In this instance, we - and the public and economy in general - appear to be penalized just for somebody's purely theoretical exercises.  Unfortunately, the result of these exercises is quite practical and far-reaching.  It looks like the epoxy bolts are effectively being precluded from use in the SDC D construction.  It is still the law of the land, and all my ramblings about this code change still do not matter.  However, I find this issue to be much more outrageous.
 
May be some of the people who actually came up with these changes will make their reasoning known to the engineering community?
 
In the mean time, in spite of our disagreement on the soil investigation issue, you, me, and the vast majority of practicing engineers we are on the same side - and on the side of the general public.  To me, this matters the most. 
 
Sincerely,
 
V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Adams
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 13:25
Subject: RE: Anchors

Steve,
 
With all due respect, I would strongly argue that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for arbitrarily requiring a soils investigation in SDC D.  None.  If there was a bit more specification on the types of structures that we are concerned about (those with vulnerable geometries, for example), it would make more sense.  But there are NO EXCEPTIONS.  It does not allow the ENGINEER to make the judgment as to whether one is TRULY warranted -- is this because the state doesn't trust us to make the right decision, based on our education and experience ... or are we all being penalized for the negligent acts of others?
 
Dave