Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: ASCE 7-05 Errors

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
There has been discussions of such things with in some of the code
committees that I have been involved with.  There are some that agree with
such a notion.  The first problem is that such a thing does not really
belong in the code since it is a tool not a requirement so to speak.
Thus, it could be something to be in a commentary to some degree, even
that is not really a good fit.  The commentary is really supposed to be a
way to provide background on why the provision is there and how it came
about so that engineers have a better understanding of what the provisions
is about/for.

The best place for something like a flow chart would be some design aid
document.  The first logical choice would be to have the code committee
create such a design aid, but one potential problem is that they already
spend enough of their time (which is typically volunteered) just to deal
with the code itself.  So, this tends to leave it up to some third party
to do.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Stuart, Matthew wrote:

> Way back when I took the Structural II, I remember that I was not
> familiar with either of the 2 Codes that were allowed to be used during
> the exam. To prepare I took the time to flow-chart portions of at least
> one of the Codes that I planned on using as my reference during the
> test.  This "decision table format" was invaluable and I used it as a
> reference after the exam.  The only problem was that once the Code got
> updated the flow chart was no longer any good.  Ever since my wish has
> been that just like some Codes provide Commentaries, all Codes should
> provide a flow chart for at least the seismic, wind and snow drift
> portions of the Code.
>
> D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F.ASCE, SECB
> Senior Project Manager
> Structural Department
> Associate
> Schoor DePalma Engineers and Consultants
> 200 State Highway Nine
> Manalapan, NJ 07726
> 732-577-9000 (Ext. 1283)
> 908-309-8657 (Cell)
> 732-298-9441 (Fax)
> mstuart(--nospam--at)schoordepalma.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Gilligan [mailto:m_k_gilligan(--nospam--at)yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 4:18 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05 Errors
>
> Harold
>
> With all due respect the justification for code
> changes are frequently not clearly documented and the
> documentation is often not availible to the users. All
> too often I am frustrated in my ability to understand
> the reason for a code provision due to the lack of
> documentation.
>
> Code change proposals are often influenced by the
> group dynamic of the committee and reflect political
> compromises.  I have seen this up front.  The process
> by which a committee drafts changes creates the
> conditions which lead to mistakes.
>
> When the "Blue Book" was revised in 1988 an editorial
> committee of 2 to 3 people went over the text to make
> sure it was clear and reflected the intent of the
> committee.
>
> Given that the committee members are typically not
> paid, the lack of proofing the documents has less to
> do with the costs and more to do with where the
> committee decided to focus its efforts.  If the
> leadership of the Committee chair does not understand
> the need for checking it won't happen.
>
> Another tool that showed a potential to help
> understand the logical flaws of standards was the work
> done by Steven Fenves on expressing the AISC code in a
> decision table format.  This work was done about 30
> years ago.
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>

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