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

RE: ACI 318 - request for comments for improvements

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

You are welcome ... you contribute much to this list. I'll always give my two cents when asked and I have something to offer, especially to an active participant. Hopefully, some knowledgeable "lurkers" will start becoming more active and spread their knowledge to the rest of us. I learn a lot from this list. I value the opinions and comments of participants like yourself.

I thought I prefaced my comments that the Spec section in the AISC manual is the "Code" but maybe I wasn't clear. 

I currently have the PCA99 notes and my 95 ACI. ACI also seems to charge a lot for little return in the code. I think the price is very reasonable if you are a member, but if not, I think its around 90 bucks or so when I can just by the PCA notes for 60 bucks and get everything I need there. I am hesitant to buy the latest 99 ACI since I rarely used my 95 ACI. I always referenced the notes or textbooks rather than the code ... I think you are seeing my point, why pay a lot for a reference you don't use. When I did use the code, I always looked to UBC rather than ACI. Perhaps that will change when IBC comes into use.

Take care,
-Gerard 

>>> smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu 06/08/01 01:16PM >>>
Glen & Gerard:

First, thanks for the comments.  These types of constructive comments will
be rather helpful.

Second, it is me (Scott Maxwell)...I am just using my personal email
account.  This way you can easily differentiate between my personal
opinions (they will come from this account) and any psuedo-"official on
behalf of ACI" posts.

I will, however, point out one thing.  You are confusing the AISC LRFD (or
ASD) Steel MANUAL with the AISC steel code (actually, I believe that AISC
calls it a specification rather than code).  The AISC specification is the
consenus document that is prepared by their committee, under AISC's
consensus rules.  AISC happens to place this document in the steel manual.
The rest of the manual (at least the design aids) ARE NOT, to my
knowledge, consensus documents.  Thus, to compare apples to apples, you
would need to compare the ACI 318 code with the AISC LRFD (or ASD)
specification.  The biggest point is that all the design aids in the AISC
manual ARE NOT legal documents.

You comment, however, is still a valid and good one.  And you are correct
that if we were to produce a manual like AISC's it would be extremely
large.  It would essentially be a combination of ACI 318, ACI's SP-17 (the
Design Handbook) and/or the CRSI Handbook, and PCA's notes on 318 to get
the same "effect".

I thank you again for the comment.

Thanks,

Scott Maxwell
Ypsilanti, MI


On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 Glen.Pappas(--nospam--at)dtra.mil wrote:

> I taught concrete design, steel design, & building design courses at USAF
> Academy from 94 - 97.  Haven't been in the codes much since then & most of
> my experience w/them prior to teaching with/from them was academic/research
> oriented.  Take this background into account w/my comment for improving ACI
> code.
> 
> I believe if ACI Code was more like AISC Code, it would make life for users
> better.  Off the cuff, it seems to me the major difference between the two
> codes is the amount of design aides (read: tables) in AISC Code, vs. that
> found in the ACI Code.  Again, off the cuff, a big step in the direction of
> adding design aides to ACI Code would be to incorporate tables like those in
> CRSI Handbook.  
> 
> I realize that unless this is done carefully (i.e., consider only 'typical'
> cases encountered in design) you'll end up w/a pretty thick book; however,
> this is the case w/AISC Code, to the extent they had to go to two volumes
> while I was teaching out of it, but I believe it's still considered to be
> popular/liked/user-friendly.
> 
> Glen   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott.Maxwell(--nospam--at)aci-int.org [mailto:Scott.Maxwell(--nospam--at)aci-int.org] 
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 3:15 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org 
> Subject: ACI 318 - request for comments for improvements
> 
> 
> 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 
> 




* 
*   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