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

Re: ACI 318 - request for comments for improvements

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I understand what you are saying.  I guess my feeling that things will be
simpler comes from my feeling that having one set of design rules with
different "multipliers" for checking against yield or ultimate strength will
be easier & help everyone to get back to a more intuitive feel for their
designs.  Myself, I never had a real problem with the introduction of LRFD,
it was just a lot of additional Greek multipliers.  Having studied WSD & USD
concrete design in the late '60s during the transition of the code, I was
able to relate ASD & LRFD (in my own mind at least).  I still stand by my
observation, simpler is better (within reason of course).  It has been my
experience over the years that the "best", most "efficient", least
expensive, quickest to erect structures have been the simpler ones.

As for coming over from the "dark side", it's not likely at this late stage
in my career.  If I were to pursue another direction, I'd go to "playing in
the mud" as my father used to say, but not the concrete kind, rather the
real stuff.  I really enjoyed soils lab and foundation design, but that too
was a long long time ago.

Scott A. Dunham, PE
Dunham Engineering Services
Dothan, AL
334-678-6948

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Maxwell" <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: ACI 318 - request for comments for improvements


> 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


* 
*   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