Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: OMRF (R value)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill,

If the model code process, which to me includes the concesus process and
public comment period at "material" standard level, misses an approach to
design that may well have merit, then in my view it is not the fault of
the model code process.  The concensus process, including the public
comment period, used by ACI, AISC, ASCE, and others is design so that a
design approach that does have merit cannot be "simply nulified" out of
hand.  Any proposed provision to any one of the national standards is
supposed to be included if there is "merit" to it or if it has
"reasonable" material to back it up.  Thus, in many cases, if a design
approach has been "nulified" then it is more than likely that it was never
presented to the standards committees or it turned out to not really have
merit.

Now, I will certainly admit that all this can pivot on how one defines
"merit" or "reasonable".  I am sure that there are individuals and groups
that would disagree with the decision by a standard committee that
"nulified" a design approach.  In fact, I know it.  A prime example is the
whole issue of expansion anchors and ACI 355 and ACI 318 appendix D.

Having said all that, I will agree that from a purely,
idealistic/technical point of view, it is the local jurisdiction that
decides what to adopt into law and what not to.  It is the local
jurisdiction that decides which code version to use, thus they should also
be able to decide if they want to modify or tweak something in those
provisions.  If I were involved in the process, however, I doubt I would
be advocating too many changes from the model building code.  To me, this
would be placing some "risk" on the local jurisdiction.  Not to mention
that fact, that the well meaning intentions of potentially increasing
safety by tweaking the model code could be lost by the fact the designer
of a project, who happens to be in the next city, is used to some
different tweaks or no tweaks, so doesn't incorporate the local
jurisdiction's tweaks when he/she does the design.  To me, this is the
same type of downside that gets included when the code cycle becomes
smaller...there is more chance that correct provisions are not being used
because the designer has not yet gotten a chance to fully absorb the
changes from the last code and even more changes are about to be shoved
out the door.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Bill Polhemus wrote:

> That said, we also need to recognize that you can only coax, you can't
> coerce.
> 
> The Model Codes are there for the benefit of the public entity, not the
> other way around. In the end, all the arguing and haranguing that goes into
> the consensus that is the Model Code often simply nullifies certain
> approaches to design that may well have merit. Neither the design
> professional nor the public official in charge of administering the code
> should have their hands tied because a faction on the other side of the
> continent saw things differently.
> 
> William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
> Polhemus Engineering Company
> Katy, TX, USA
> Phone (281) 492-2251
> FAX (281) 492-8203
> email bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carter, Charlie [mailto:carter(--nospam--at)aisc.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 7:26 AM
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> Subject: RE: OMRF (R value)
> 
> The further benefit to that would be that we would not have to master subtle
> and needless differences in design requirements when crossing the street
> from county to county or town to town.
> 
> 
> 
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> * 
> *   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 
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 
> 


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********