Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Any Young Engineers Out There?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Charlie:

I don't see any reason why it could not be done as you describe other than
hell will likely have to freeze over for it to happen! <grin>

While the concrete world has pretty much gone where the steel world was
unable to go (i.e. pretty much go 100% to "strength" based [aka ultimate
or LRFD]), there are still some extremely stubborn holdouts that like
WSD/ASD.  They were the reason (if I recall correctly) why there is that
ACI 318 commentary provision that implies (incorrectly from a pure
technical point of view, but could be useful for a "standard of care"
arguement) that one could still use the 1999 Appendix A even though ACI
318-02 (and 318-05) have eliminated the WSD Apprendix A.  So, while the
concrete world has done a relative good job of "stamping" out WSD, there
are enough "crusty old farts" (used with the UTMOST affection) that still
like and want WSD that maybe, just maybe, ACI 318 could be convinced to
learn from AISC's "enlightened" (if "surrendered") path of making ASD and
LRFD basically interchangable and do the same to ACI 318...

...on second thought...NAH...ain't gonna happen.  I got a better chance of
my dream of a beautiful, rich, great woman wanting me to be her "kept man"
and living the life of luxury!  <grin>

But, hey, feel free to go to an ACI 318 meeting a proposed the idea.  Just
make sure to let me know if you do so that I can come watch the
excitement!  ;-)

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Carter, Charlie wrote:

> >Joe  Venuti  wrote:
> >SOooooooooooo ASCE would discontinue ASD
> >in steel not AISC......pass  the buck.
>
>
> You're probably more likely to see ACI 318 add ASD than to see ASCE 7 delete ASD. Hmmm ...
>
> Step 1: forget tired old arguments that there needs to be any difference between LRFD and ASD.
>
> Step 2: rewrite the specification, in all cases using the better provision from what is in both to determine nominal strength; use equations that can be seen in stress form and in strength form so that any user gets their preferred way
>
> Step 3: determine appropriate phi factor for each provision
>
> Step 4: add omega factors equal to 1.5/phi throughout
>
> Step 5: multiply by phi if using LRFD load combinations; divide by omega if using ASD load combinations
>
> Well, I guess there was a lot more work involved than that. But I still wonder if ASD concrete design might not be as simple as using the current ACI 318 with Omegas equal to 1.5 divided by the capacity reduction factor.
>
> As a former ACI staffer, Scott Maxwell must be very amused by my forray into reinforced concrete code writing.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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