Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: ASTM C-913 vs. ACI 350

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
ASTM C913 uses ACI-318 design methodology, so the additional durability
factor in ACI-350 does not get added to the usual load factors. Also, there
are standard dimension and reinforcement tables for rectangular tanks in
this specification, but no consideration of seismic loads. When buried, the
soil loads are stipulated as active rather than at rest pressures, which I'm
not sure I would agree with. I think this was really intended for routine
applications like septic tanks, not necessarily the application you have in
mind. 

-----Original Message-----
From: MARK MINTICH [mailto:mmintich(--nospam--at)yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 8:19 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: ASTM C-913 vs. ACI 350


In a waste water treatment facility I am considering
the use of precast concrete tanks for rapid mix tanks.
 These tanks (6'x6'x7'H) would be above ground on a
platform.  The vendor of the tanks specifies ASTM C913
as one of their design guides.  How does this compare
to ACI 350?  



=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com