Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: OMRF (R value) (code development process)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>ACI is only/purely a technical
>organization and AISC is both a
>technical organization AND the steel
>industry trade organization. 
>As a result, AISC does have more
>sources of revenue that ACI
>(and ASCE and TMS).

But the trade association dues in total are barely enough to cover my
salary. (-:

Scott and I have discussed this at length and don't entirely agree (in a
friendly way, of course). I don't think AISC, ACI, ASCE, etc. are all that
different when you get down to the brass tacks. No one should cry foul about
income as I do not see the staff starving in any of these organizations.
Actually, one in that list has quite a profit motive in the pricing of their
publications, conferences, seminars and other products (hint: it isn't mine
or ACI).

Maybe I should just say I don't think AISC, ACI, ASCE, etc. should be all
that different, whether they have a trade association function in-house or
through liaison of similar personnel and volunteers with a parallel
organization. There is no way that any of these organizations would
knowingly compromise public safety to do anything to benefit their defined
interest. I can tell you for my part in ten years at AISC, I have not seen
anyone with a special interest get the special treatment they've sought.
Furthermore, if it ever came to be and I could not successfully prevent it,
I would resign and say publically why I resigned.

In fact, about the only (and the most egregious) place I've seen a special
interest get their way was in the very building code process with which some
seem to be so enamored. Way back in the days of Henry Degenkolb, R factors
were proposed for the various structural systems based upon actual, observed
and tested performance and did not treat special moment frames equivalently
across the various materials. Steel special moment frames had demonstrated
better interstory drift capability than concrete special moment frames. As a
result, steel special moment frames had a correspondingly higher R factor in
the proposal. However, the political wranglings and smokey-room deals
negated this technical finer point and the final building code adopted the
higher steel R factor for both steel and concrete. Post-Northridge steel
special moment frames still have a demonstrated higher interstory drift
capability than concrete special moment frames. I suppose it does not really
matter in the end because R factors are all just SWA guesses anyway.

I did not mean the above as an attack on reinforced concrete, ACI or anyone.

Charlie











******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********