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,

Thanks for you input on this issue. I'd also like to
second what Eli is saying. I have no problem with
referencing ASCE7 for the seismic provisions, but my
problem is that now (with IBC 2003) I need BOTH
publications to do a complete seismic design. With IBC
2000 I just needed my copy of IBC 2000 (as well as my
IBC Commentary to decipher the Code).

It's a bit frustrating when I'm directed to use ASCE 7
for all seismic design - except for this, that, this,
this (except on alternating Tuesdays when there is a
moon that is more than half full - except if the date
of that Tuesday is an odd number) and this....

I truly believe that at least 80% of the people on
Code writing committees must be people who actually
have to use the codes on a daily basis.

Harold, I know that you are one of the practitioners
on the code committees on which you belong. NO NAPS
FOR YOU!!!! - or else the academics might make the
codes more complicated while you're sleeping!

Thanks.

Cliff Schwinger



--- Eli Grassley <elig(--nospam--at)psm-engineers.com> wrote:

> 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ******
> ********
> 



		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

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