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

ACI 355.2

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Message text written by INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)
> While conscientious engineers may differ about 
details of this new standard, its fundamental performance criteria should 
not be controversial.  <

Agreed. And, with all due respect for an academic colleague, decades of
should count for much more than theory. If anchors have performed well for
so long,
what has changed to so suddenly revise their acceptance criteria? Have we
seen them
fail in droves lately? Concrete has been cracking for almost 2500 years
now. Why the
sudden concern? Explain that one, and I'm a convert to the cause.

> I would invite those interested in 
exploring the technical issues involved in ACI 355.2 to contact me 
personally, and to come to the next meeting of ACI Committee 355, which 
will take place on March 25, 2001, in conjunction with the ACI Convention 
in Philadelphia. <

Yeah, I'd like to go. Unfortunately, the standard was published less than
90 days
before the convention, rather than the 6-9+ months normally given. The
convention announcement
only includes committee meetings on standards about to be balloted. This
standard (conveniently?)
didn't get published until less than 3 months before the convention. You
can't go to something
you don't know is happening. Not all of us can rearrange our schedules on
such short notice, let
alone satisfy the abreviated comment period. I might have made the trip if
I'd known this was coming.

The more I hear about this, the less I like it. Some have been called a bit
paranoid (lawsuits
and all), but I'm beginning to see a hidden agenda.


Peter Higgins, SE