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]

But since AISC pays such BIG bucks, doesn't that mean that amount is
rather large!! <grin>

Actually, you and I are probably not that far apart (as I reply in the
private message).  I agree with the sentiment that standards committee
members should have some travel expenses (if not all) reimbursed since
they are contributing so much already by donating there time.  It is just
that some organization can't afford to do so, either due to overall lack
of revenue or due to different priorities (right or wrong).  So, we really
don't disagree on the issue...I just tend to point out that this IS a
difference (knowledge from working on the Dark Side - concrete), right or

I had aways though that AISC gets a certain $$ on the ton from (member)
mills and AISC certified fabrication shops.  Is that lumped in what you
call dues?  I would suspect that $$ on the ton of fabricated steel may not
amount to much since becoming an AISC certified fabrication shop is purely
voluntary, and if I recall correctly there are _NO_ AISC certified
fabrication shops in Michigan for example.

I also want to make it clear that I don't in anyway seriously think that
AISC's process is compromised by their in house function.  I just say
things like that to pull Charlie's leg! <grin>  To me, the in house trade
organization function of AISC does not compromise just means
that AISC has some extra safe guards they must put in place to prevent
such a thing from occurring since having the trade organization inhouse
creates the potential for such shenanagans to occur.  Ultimately, having
the trade organization function in house is not that much difference from
ACI, which does have a rather close relationship is some regards to PCA,
the concrete trade organization.  If it were me, I would have the two
functions (trade vs. technical) be seperate, only because it would
eliminate the perception that undue influence might be occurring (even
though it is extremely unlikely and I don't believe that it does).

While I can't say with any authority that steel moment frames perform
better than concrete moment frames or the other way around, I would
suggest that the R-factor (or seismic performance) is not just a function
of the interstory drift (although that is certainly a LARGE part).  To me,
the R-factor, if rationally determined rather than politically determined,
would be a function of the ductility/energy absorption of the system, not
just drift.  I have seen many lateral system test results where the
lateral drift was great, but the hysterisis loops were "pinched" (meaning
less ductility/enery assumption).  It is highly likely that Charlie's
point would still stand in light of this little nit pick on my part
(because I am rather sure that both concrete and steel special moment
frames would have some rather nice, round hysterisis loops), but I could
not help nit-picking on that one little thing! <grin>

I must also admit that I am much more suspicious of the code development
process in the model code groups than anything one of the "materials"
standards does.  I will admit that I am partially biased since I did work
for one of the "material" standards at one time.  My problem with the
model codes process (hearings, etc.) is that it presents an opportunity
for some one to attempt modify some provisions that was already rejected
(with reason that are typically rather valid, although that can be debated
sometimes) at the "material" standard committee level or was never even
suggested/presented at teh "material" standard committee level because
they felt that it MIGHT get rejected.  To me, this is an example of
someone not likely a result and trying to circumvent the system for their
own benefit.  Admittedly, sometimes the "materials" standard committee
might be wrong and a second look might be appropriate, but then there are
provisions within the concensus process that are meant to act as checks
and balances.

For example, let's say that a committee member feels that an ACI committee
rejected his proposed provision incorrectly (either on a technical or
procedural matter).  The first opportunity to argue it again would be to
submit a public comment to the committee during the public comment period.
The next step would be to appeal the decision to TAC.  Then one could
appeal to the ACI Standards Board (if it is a procedural issue, then it
goes directly to them anyway rather than TAC).  And finally, one could
appeal the Standards Board desicion to the ACI Board.

Thus, to me it is especially annoys me if someone were to get a provision
created by an ACI committee changed at the model code level if they did
not even bother to try to change it at the "material" standards level
including running the full extent of the concensus process including

What it comes down for me is that I like Charlie feel that at the model
code level (hearings, etc) that it is a little too easy for a particular
party or individual to get a change made that could be benefitial to that
party or individual.

I don't want to imply that I think that code hear process is completely
bad.  I just believe that it, like the concensus process of various
organizations, has its own set of weaknesses as well as strengths.  I am
also critical of the concensus process for different organizations
(because not all concensus processes work the same) including ACI's.  Each
has strengths and weaknesses.


Ypsilanti, MI

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Carter, Charlie wrote:

> >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:
> * 
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: 
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********