Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02 Experts

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Harold, sorry to interrupt your nap...
It sounds like you know quite a lot about the process of code development.
What are your opinions on the transformation of the individual material
chapters in the IBC?  It appears that v.2003 tried to cut down on the
miscellaneous errata by simply referencing standard material codes, like
ACI-318 or NDS-2001.  If that was the plan, which makes sense to me, then
why are there still a few sections such as 1908, "Modifications to ACI-318?"
Or even more confusing - the mess of being able to use parts and pieces of
the IBC EQ design chapter in conjunction with ASCE7-02.  Why not just
reference ASCE7 and be done with it?? What happened to KISS?
Thanks for your thoughts.

Eli Grassley

-----Original Message-----
From: Harold Sprague [mailto:spraguehope(--nospam--at)hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 11:33 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02 Experts


Cliff,
Relief is on the way.  I think that you need to place the recent rapid pace 
of code development in historical context.  And it was indeed a reaction to 
poor performance of our building structures due earthquakes that were short 
of the theoretical design events.  We had Loma Prieta in 1989 and Northridge

in 1994.  We also were fighting 3 codes in the US.  We had poor agreement 
for characterizing "Eastern North American" (ENA) earthquakes vs. the 
classic California earthquakes.  Then the performance expectations were all 
over the map.  There was the issue of the steel connections that led to the 
FEMA and SAC studies.  Then there was the issue that the maps were all wrong

(which we knew for some time), and we went to the spectral ordinate maps.

The information was coming fast and furious.  The dilemma was a: do we just 
sit on it for X years and let engineers build things that we knew were 
wrong, or b: change the code to disseminate the information as quickly as 
possible.  As you can tell we chose "b".

Now after years of this fast pace and burnout of some of our colleagues, we 
are moving to going to a 5 year cycle in lieu of the 3 year cycle.

There were some real improvements in the 2003 IBC.  The formatting changes 
were studied by several people, and the consensus was that the new format is

easier.  I think that in time you will agree.  The nonbuilding structures 
was the first to be reformatted under my watch on that committee.

Now, back to my afternoon nap.

Regards,
Harold Sprague





>From: Cliff <clifford234(--nospam--at)yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
>To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>Subject: Re: ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02 Experts
>Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> > First of all I have to say keeping up with "code
> > changes" is adding grey
> > hair on a daily basis now.
>
>Barry,
>
>I agree. Things are getting out of control.
>Personally, I'd like to see a moratorium on Code
>changes for one code cycle.
>
>Could someone please explain to me what REAL and
>TANGIBLE improvements were made to the seismic
>provisions of the IBC code between the IBC 2000 and
>IBC 2003. It seems that no real improvements were made
>- things were just made more complicated. In my
>opinion the IBC 2000 seismic provisions were as close
>to perfection as you can get. The format and
>arrangement of the IBC 2003 seismic provisions just
>muddied the waters without any real improvement. As I
>understand it, the seismic provisions will be getting
>even more complex in the next round.
>
>Actually I don't know why I'm complaining - now that
>we have computers to think for us, it doesn't matter
>how complex the codes and accompanying equations are.
>Heck, now that we can design structures 20 times
>faster with a computer than we could twenty years ago,
>we should really only be working 2 hours a week!
>
>Have a nice weekend - for those of you who take the
>weekends off.
>
>Cliff Schwinger
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to 
School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx


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