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]
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Carter, Charlie wrote:

> and extended cycles would mean less such income. Failing that, we'll
> (AISC will) probably follow a basic six-year cycle, with an intermediate
> 3-year supplement. That approach satisfies all current frequencies.
>
> Charlie
>

And that is basically what ACI currently does with ACI 318.  While they
don't really call them "intermediate 3-year supplements", every other
3-year cycle tends to have much fewer "significant" changes.  ACI 318-05
to my knowledlge has little in the way of major changes.  The biggest
thing that I am aware of is a re-doing/organizing of the nomenclature,
abbreviations, notations, etc.  I expect that there will be some rather
more significant changes in the 2008 ACI 318.

This is not as true for the MSJC from my experience.  Each of their cycles
tends to have some significant changes.  I would say (from my personal
perspective) that this is largely a function of the fact that the MSJC
(masonry code) is relatively "young" when compared with ACI 318 or AISC's
ASD/LRFD specs.  Thus, there are still a rather larger number of
"significant" issues that they need to address (prime example is working
some of the "kinks" out of strength design, which is a rather "new
fangled" thing for masonry design).

As it has been pointed out by Charlie and others, there is a push to
lengthen the cycle period.  From my perspective, I see this as being
somewhat driven by the various standards organization's own code
committees.  I believe that many of the committees and their members are
finding that it is rather difficult to actually get their work done in 3
year cycles, especially if they have significant issues to deal with.  As
Charlie points out though, I would think that some of the organizations
themselves are probably not to fond of the idea as it will undoubtedly
affect their bottom line as much of their revenue comes from the sales of
their most recognized and "important" standards.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

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