Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: ASTM C-913 vs. ACI 350[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: ASTM C-913 vs. ACI 350
- From: "Sherman, William" <ShermanWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:42:52 -0500
I concur with James Lutz that structures designed per ASTM C913 do not include durability factors per ACI 350, and in my opinion cannot be considered "equal" to a structure designed per ACI 350. However, it should be noted that the proposed new ACI 350 code is currently planned to exclude "precast environmental structures designed and constructed in accordance with ASTM or AWWA" from its requirements, except for circular tanks. I assume this is to avoid direct conflict with such standards - however, the engineer should be clear as to what standards are to be followed when specifying precast structures. I'm not sure why ASTM does not include provisions as recommended by ACI 350. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lutz,James [mailto:JLUTZ(--nospam--at)earthtech.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 10:02 AM > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org > Subject: RE: ASTM C-913 vs. ACI 350 > > > 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?
- Prev by Subject: RE: ASTM C-913 vs. ACI 350
- Next by Subject: ASTM F1554 Grade 105 Anchor Bolts
- Previous by thread: RE: ASTM C-913 vs. ACI 350
- Next by thread: RE: 97 UBC 16184.108.40.206 Out-of-plane wall anchorage to flex diap (c oncr or cmu walls)