Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: We're Not Getting Older, We're Getting DUMBER [WAS: Any Young Engineers Out There?]

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: RE: We're Not Getting Older, We're Getting DUMBER [WAS: Any Young Engineers Out There?]

But what it sounds like you’re saying here, Charlie, is that you feel fairly sure that 1989 ASD spec is going to be “more conservative.”

 

That was my point. If someone sticks with the old spec, I doubt they’ll be putting themselves in jeopardy. If, heaven forbid, such a designer found himself involved in litigation, I might make things UNCOMFORTABLE if he had to explain that he was designing by an “outmoded” method, but a check of his design using the later method would probably pass.

 

I’m suggesting that this is the rationale a lot of stick-in-the-mud designers are going to use to continue business as usual.

 


From: Carter, Charlie [mailto:carter(--nospam--at)aisc.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:14 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: We're Not Getting Older, We're Getting DUMBER [WAS: Any Young Engineers Out There?]

 

>do you know for 100% fact
>that 100% of all designs done
>per the 1989  ASD spec (aka
>9th edition) will be conservative
>relative to new AISC specs
>such as the 2005 spec

If this question could be answered entirely from the strength side, I am all but certain that the 2005 ASD provisions provide a stress or strength equal to or greater than the 1989 ASD provisions.  However, it can't be limited to the strength side, and the changes on the load side in ASCE 7 are significant, such as their reduction in the usefulness (virtual eliminiation) of the 1/3 stress increase.  When both sides of the equation are considered, you may find cases where 1989 exceeds 2005.

Charlie