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

Re: ACI 318 - request for comments for improvements

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Scott,

One observation that I would make in comparing the ACI code and the AISC code is the lack of examples and background into. With ACI you have to buy the notes to get those were as the AISC code has them in there. The AISC is good in that it has sections devoted to beams, columns, composite etc... and then it has the actual code (spec). 

I rarely find anything of use in the ACI comments on the right hand side of the page. Any questions I have on concrete I get answered from my College Text books ( MacGregor and Nawy for RC,  Lin and Burns for Prestressed).

You are correct though, I would say that concrete and steel are just as easy to design in as the other. I think concrete's disadvantage is that detailing of things like ties and confinement are more difficult to get a feel for than just learning the strength calculations. It takes a good understanding of construction practices and engineering principles to figure out detailing of concrete elements, more so than steel in my opinion.

Lastly, I think the use of forms and the curing time tend to make the construction schedule less attractive when compared to steel.

Just some thoughts,
-Gerard

San Francisco, CA


>>> Scott.Maxwell(--nospam--at)aci-int.org 06/08/01 12:14PM >>>
Greetings:

I would like to see if you would provide us with a little assistance, which
ultimately could end up helping yourself.

ACI has heard and received comments about the complexity of the ACI 318
concrete code.  Some surveys have suggested that more structural engineers
prefer to design in steel than in concrete.  Some use these surveys to
conclude that the ACI 318 code is a major contributor to this preference.
This concern has been expressed to ACI by several of the major concrete
trade associations.

We would like to conduct a survey to attempt to determine what areas of the
code need improvement or clarification (note, I hesitate to use the word
"simplification").  The hope is to get some feedback on how to improve the
318 code to make it more useful and user-friendly.

We are currently at a loss, however, as to how approach this problem,
especially since the code itself is rather large, making it difficult to
focus in on particular problems.  We are hoping that you might be willing
to offer some ideas.  For example, what areas of the ACI 318 code do you
find too complex or burdensome to use?  Basically, we are looking for you
to share with us some of you experiences and thoughts on using this code.
We hope that this will help us craft a more through survey that will allow
us to determine how we can make the ACI 318 code a better, more
user-friendly document.

Thanks,

Scott

_____________________________________________
Scott E. Maxwell, PE, SE
Structural Engineer

ACI International (American Concrete Institute)
38800 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI  48331

T:  (248) 848-3829
F:  (248) 848-3720
E:  Scott.Maxwell(--nospam--at)aci-int.org 


*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp 
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 


* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org