A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
ASCE-31 and ASCE-41: What Good Are They?
Two relatively new standards, ASCE-31, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, and ASCE-41, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, are being touted as great developments in earthquake engineering — the next wave of performance-based engineering. However, belying the polished appearance of these standards, is the reality that standards like these will constrict the application of engineering first-principles in the existing buildings evaluations — even by engineers who have significant performance-based experience in earthquake engineering — and will result in condemnation or strengthening of elements of structures or structures in their entirety that ought not be condemned or upgraded. In parallel, use of these standards by engineers who are inexperienced in earthquake engineering may result both in a false sense of security and in buildings that will not perform as expected. In our opinion, ASCE-31 and ASCE-41 represent significant dangers to bur profession, simultaneously squelching appropriately creative performance-based methodologies, promoting the expenditures of large sums of money on inappropriate engineering analysis and strengthening, and encouraging inexperienced practitioners to leap unprepared into performance-based seismic evaluation and design.
ASCE-31 and ASCE-41: What Good Are They?
Two relatively new standards, ASCE-31, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, and ASCE-41, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, are being touted as great developments in earthquake engineering — the next wave of performance-based engineering. However, belying the polished appearance of these standards, is the reality that standards like these will constrict the application of engineering first-principles in the existing buildings evaluations — even by engineers who have significant performance-based experience in earthquake engineering — and will result in condemnation or strengthening of elements of structures or structures in their entirety that ought not be condemned or upgraded. In parallel, use of these standards by engineers who are inexperienced in earthquake engineering may result both in a false sense of security and in buildings that will not perform as expected. In our opinion, ASCE-31 and ASCE-41 represent significant dangers to bur profession, simultaneously squelching appropriately creative performance-based methodologies, promoting the expenditures of large sums of money on inappropriate engineering analysis and strengthening, and encouraging inexperienced practitioners to leap unprepared into performance-based seismic evaluation and design.
ASCE-31 and ASCE-41: What Good Are They?
Searer, Gary R. (author) / Paret, Terrence F. (author) / Freeman, Sigmund A. (author)
Structures Congress 2008 ; 2008 ; Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Structures Congress 2008 ; 1-8
2008-10-14
Conference paper
Electronic Resource
English
ASCE-31 and ASCE-41: What Good Are They?
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2008
Online Contents | 1998
Online Contents | 1998
Online Contents | 1998
Online Contents | 1996