Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Pouring Concrete

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The origins of the pouring versus placing controversy appear to be lost in history.  Or else the responsible parties do not want to take credit.  My understanding (from potentially reliable sources)  is that it was an ACI thing,  and that certain individuals felt that the term "pour" implied that concrete was a liquid.  "Place"  was felt to create better imagery. 
And on a previous note,  with respect to criticizing ACI,  it would be much more useful if one did it when they actually ASKED for it,  i.e. when they put documents out for review.  I believe Scott has done a good job of keeping us informed as to when such documents are available on the ACI web site.
I will note that one of my comments on the ACI 301 draft document was why it included references to slabs-on-ground when the title of the document was "Structural Concrete" and this seems to conflict with ACI 318.  Personally,  I don't really care, but this was discussed for half an hour in a litigation I was involved in,  and to my mind such discussions are a complete waste of time and money.  Although I made money off it.
I had about twelve pages of comments on the draft 301 document but it was more or less the same three comments:  "Sentence is grammatically incorrect".  "Sentence is poorly worded."  "Sentence makes no sense." 
Although sometimes I mixed them up a little and said "Sentence is poorly worded AND grammatically incorrect."  Because my personal opinion is that it is an extremely poorly written document.
And this is a pretty neat web site for those who would rather discuss the correct usage of English than anything else.
It talks about things like "a lot" and "a little" and "then" and "than".
Gail Kelley