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

RE: Alternate Design Method for Concrete

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Nice to know that I am not crazy...OK, may not completely crazy...yet.
;-)

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Sherman, William wrote:

> Yes, I did submit a "public comment" at that time.
>
> William C. Sherman, PE
> (Bill Sherman)
> CDM, Denver, CO
> Phone: 303-298-1311
> Fax: 303-293-8236
> email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)cdm.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:03 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: IBC Question
>
> Did you submit a comment to ACI 318-02 when the ADM was proposed to be
> removed?  For some reason, I seem to recall your name from somewhere
> when I was working for ACI.  Of course, I am getting old and senile,
> so...
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Sherman, William wrote:
>
> > You do make a good point that the commentary is not part of the legal
> > document, although I do think that the Commentary could be sited as a
> > clear indication of the code committee's "intent".  I was strongly
> > opposed to removal of the Alternate Design Method from ACI 318, and in
>
> > my opinion, all material codes should maintain some basic ASD
> > provisions, even if relatively conservative.  We should maintain the
> > ability to analyze service load stresses and to have a feel for the
> > acceptability of the calculated stresses.
> >
> > As an ACI 350 committee member, I am also a strong proponent of
> > keeping the Alternate Design Method in that code, which is still part
> > of the next proposed version (due to be published for public comments
> soon).
> >
> > William C. Sherman, PE
> > (Bill Sherman)
> > CDM, Denver, CO
> > Phone: 303-298-1311
> > Fax: 303-293-8236
> > email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)cdm.com
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:17 AM
> > > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > > Subject: RE: IBC Question
> > >
> > > Ah, but from a technical point of view, section R1.1 is _NOT_ part
> > > of ACI
> > > 318 (i.e. the "code").  The commentary is NOT a "legal"
> > > document...in otherwords, it is not a mandatory language document
> > > and has no standing from the point of view of being "code
> > > enforceable".  Now, it could be construed as a "standard of care"
> > > document.
> > >
> > > The point is that from a purely code/"legal" point of view that bit
> > > in the commentary means nothing.
> > >
> > > Now, if you have a local juridiction that has adopted ACI
> > > 350-01 as a referenced code for environmental structures (i.e.
> > > tanks, etc), then I believe WSD would still be permitted "per code"
> > > as I believe ACI 350 still has WSD (aka the "Alternate Desgin
> > > Method").  It is also possible that some of the ACI nuclear oriented
>
> > > codes might still have WSD in them.
> > >
> > > Thus, that is the reason why I stated "technically, WSD no longer
> > > exists for concrete".  You forgot my little qualifier (i.e. the
> > > "technically").
> > > You are correct, however, that the commentary does imply that WSD
> > > "may"
> > > be used, but as I am not a lawyer (though I have stayed in Holiday
> > > Inn Express hotels in the past) I cannot say how much legal validity
>
> > > such a commentary statement has.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Scott
> > > Adrian, MI
> > >
> > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Sherman, William wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is not completely accurate to say that "WSD no longer exists
> > > > for concrete" or that a 1/3 increase no longer applies to
> concrete.
> > > > Although the Alternate Design Method is no longer published
> > > in the ACI
> > > > 318 Appendices, Section R1.1 of ACI 318-05 includes the
> > > statement "The
> > > > Alternate Design Method of the 1999 code may be used in place of
> > > > applicable sections of this code."  And section A.2.2 of the 1999
> > > > Appendix A for the Alternate Design Method permits a 0.75
> > > > reduction factor when considering wind or earthquake forces. Thus,
>
> > > > WSD with a
> > > > 1/3 allowable stress increase is still permitted - it is
> > > just hidden well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > William C. Sherman, PE
> > > > (Bill Sherman)
> > > > CDM, Denver, CO
> > > > Phone: 303-298-1311
> > > > Fax: 303-293-8236
> > > > email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)cdm.com
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********