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

Re: ACI 318 - request for comments for improvements

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

I will offer a slight word of caution about your comments about AISC going
back to supporting ASD because "...it is simpler and more intuitive."  The
future versions of ASD may not be the simple straight, forward
specification that your are used to using in the form of the 9th edition.
As Charlie Carter has pointed out, the 9th edition of the ASD
specification is now about 12 years old and has not had many of the
"enhancements" incorporated that the LRFD specification has.  Charlie had
been rather blunt in pointing out that even those who are steadfast ASDers
(that included me before I left the "real world" of design) will likely
find that their beloved ASD will not be so "simple" once it is brought up
to par with the LRFD specification when AISC does the "joint" ASD/LRFD
specification in 2005 (I believe that is the date).

Regardless, we appreciate the comments and maybe we will eventually be
able to intice you away from the "dark side" (aka steel design) and back
to concrete! <grin>  I must admit though, it is still tough for me to
resist the call of the "dark side"...after all Detroit is a steel town!
<grin>

Scott Maxwell
Ypsilanti, MI


On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Scott A. Dunham, PE wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick Burch" <rburch(--nospam--at)conterra.com>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 2:51 PM
> Subject: Re: ACI 318 - request for comments for improvements
> 
> 
> >
> > I may be the only one here to say so, but I vote for anything that can
> > be done to simplify the code. In my book, "simplify" is not a bad word.
> > If anyone thinks that all the complexity in the code is producing safer
> > or more economical structures, they are mistaken. To prove it, just pick
> > one of the obscure requirements in the code, ask some older experienced
> > engineer about it, and watch the blank look that you get. A lot of
> > simplifying is being done out in the real world, where engineers are
> > mainly interested in getting a safe job out, not in analyzing or
> > designing something to extremes. It is a little counterintuitive, but I
> > think that a simpler code would lead to more economical and safe
> > structures, since engineers would actually know what was in the code and
> > what it means, and would therefore be more likely to use it.
> >
> > I know that concrete will always be more difficult to design than steel
> > just due to its nature. I think this is all the more reason to not make
> > it any more difficult than is absolutely necessary.
> >
> > Simplify, simplify, simplify, every area that you can.  To answer your
> > specific question, anything that can be done to make column design
> > easier would be my first priority.
> >
> 
> Well said Rick.  You are not alone, I too feel that the *KISS* rule should
> be applied at every opportunity in life, things have a way of getting way
> too complicated all by themselves, without our intentionally introducing
> complexity!  When I graduated college 29 years ago, I received an award for
> being the best student in my RC design class, that's the last concrete
> design I have ever done.  It wasn't a conscious decision on my part, I just
> started working for a company doing steel design, and have remained in that
> arena ever since.  But, to underscore your point, I'll remind everyone of
> the change, rediscovery, or whatever you want to call it that the AISC is
> undergoing re the ASD Spec.  Thirteen years after pushing LRFD, they are
> returning to support the ASD method of design again.  Why, well at least in
> part because it is simpler and more intuitive (IMHO).
> 
> As an aside, it is interesting to me, having spent all my time in the steel
> business, to hear that concrete is looking to make itself more appealing.
> For years, all I've heard is that steel must be made easier because we were
> losing to much of the market to concrete.  Go figure.
> 
> Scott A. Dunham, PE
> Dunham Engineering Services
> Dothan, AL
> 334-678-6948
> 
> 
> * 
> *   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