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]
Cliff & Eli:

I will again add to what Harold said on the code cycle.  While I don't
know much about the plans of the ICC and other "material" groups (i.e.
ACI, AISC, etc), I do know that a 5 year cycle was dicussed at the last
ASCE 7 meeting.  In addition, AISC does not really work on the three cycle
that the model building codes do (at least it does not appear that
way...maybe Charlie will comment).  And I know that ACI (ACI 318 in
particular) would much rather deal with a 6 year cycle (they kind of do
right now...for all intents and purposes every other 3 year cycle of ACI
318 has relatively "minor" changes, so you really only get "major" changes
every 6 years;  as example 318-02 had major/significant changes, while to
my understanding the proposed changed for 318-05 are relatively minor).
One problem that ACI faces to them going to a 6 year cycle (besides the
model code folks) is that I believe ANSI require modifications to ANSI
National Standards (which ACI 318, MSJC, ASCE 7, etc are in essence if not
actuality) every 5 years.

Now, as to your other issue, the intent of the IBC has been for a while to
just reference (ANSI) National Standards (such as ACI 318, the MSJC, the
NDS, AISC's ASD and LRFD Specs and Seismic Spec, ASCE 7, etc).  And while
many are not fond of NFPA's building code, that is EXACTLY how they
operate.  NFPA tries MUCH harder (from my limited experience) to just
reference the National Standards without "tweaking" or "modifying" them.
ICC seems to have a tougher time dealing with the "tweaking" or
"modifying" of the referenced National Standards.  To me, this is partly
due to their UBC/ICBO partial background (ICBO/UBC would adopt provisions
from ACI 318 or ASCE 7 etc with modifications done by SEAOC; many times
they would actually reprint those provisions with modifications in the UBC
rather than just reference; the concrete chapter of the 1997 UBC is a
prime example...it is basically ACI 318-95 [I believe] reprinted with some
modifications; to be fair, many of the modification in the UBC, for
concrete at least, were seismic related, which ACI 318 did not really
start to get serious with until around the 1995 or 1999 edition) and due
to how they deal with changes (i.e. public hearing where ANYONE can
propose changes).  The end result in the ICC process is you can get stuff
added in by people who do "end runs" on ACI 318 or ASCE 7 etc.  That is
they could not convince one of the National Standards (such as ACI
318, ASCE 7 ,etc) that operate under strict concensus requirements
(which are intented to make sure that you can justify with actual
techinical/engineering reasons why something need to be changed not just
because you want to change it, don't like something, or would be able to
sell more of your "widgets" due to a change; that is not to say that
"politics" still can't influence things on consensus commitees) to do
or change something, so they take it to the ICC hearing and propose the
change there, where (to my understanding) the rules for how changes occur
(i.e. the procedures and need for a higher level of technical
justification) are somewhat easier to deal with.

So, the point is that it is my understanding that ICC is trying to move
toward just referenceing the National Standard with little to no
modifcations in the IBC.  But this will not always be the case.  In the
case of ASCE 7, I believe that part of the problem is that the 2003 IBC is
kind of a "transition" between the old way (all the load provisions
directly in the model building code) and the new way (which is where it
will just mainly reference ASCE 7).  My guess is that the 2006 IBC will be
a little better.  In addition, ASCE 7-05 will have the seismic provisions
re-organized to be a little more "user friendly".  As I understand it, the
seismic provisions in ASCE 7-02 are a little difficult to get used to
using (i.e. the order in which things occur).  As a result, the Seismic
Task group of ASCE 7 reorganized the ASCE 7-02 seismic provisions (there
was talk about releasing an ASCE 7-02R, which would have been ASCE 7-02
with the reorganized seismic provisions, at the last ASCE 7 meeting, but I
don't believe that it will happen as they apparently also "fixed" a few
things when they reorganized it so it is not just ASCE 7-02 reorganized,
but that ASCE 7-02 reorganized plus little something extra) to use as a
starting point for their changes to the 2005 edition.

HTH,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Cliff wrote:

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

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