Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: ASCE 7-05

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Extortion by whom?  I will remind you that the IBC (and ASCE 7 and the NDS
and ACI 318, etc) doesn't have ANY force until a local jurisdiction or state
adopts it.  There is absolutely NOTHING that FORCES a state or local
jurisdiction to adopt the latest version of a model code or standard.  After
all California sat on their tushies with the 1997 UBC for almost 10 years
(granted they did modify it some with updates).  Thus, if states and/or
local jurisdictions stopped adopting the latest and greatest codes, then the
various code development organizations would likely start spreading out the
cycles of code development (there is already some push anyways...ASCE 7 is
basically going to a 5/6 cycle...the next ASCE 7 will not be until 2010).

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On 10/22/07 6:54 PM, "Haan, Scott M POA" <Scott.M.Haan(--nospam--at)poa02.usace.army.mil>
wrote:

> Here. Here. The code wind loads have gotten overly complicated since the 97
> UBC under the guise of tailoring your loads to the site. It is ridiculuous.
> Telling the gurus to stop going berzerk is not backseat driving.
> 
> Also reformatting the layout of a part of the code to make it easier to
> follow does not not make it easier to follow until you relearn where
> everything is. It is a pain.  Case in point: ASCE7-05 seismic provisions.
> 
> The end product of the ANSI process is the codes get modified enough every
> three years so everyone will have to buy new books and go to the seminars to
> learn how to use them.  It is extortion.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: smaxwell(--nospam--at)umich.edu [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)umich.edu]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:35 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05
> 
> While I do believe that there are a lot of engineers out there who are overly
> harsh on the various code/standard committees (it is rather easy to
> "backseat" drive or complain about stuff when you are not familiar with the
> process or the work that goes on and the difficulty in getting sometimes 50+
> people to agree enough on something to produce a provision), I do believe
> that ASCE 7 has gotten a little out of hand with the wind provisions.  Having
> messed with the wind loads for signs recently, I can say that it is WAY to
> involved a process to get wind loads for a freakin' sign (it took me multiple
> hours to JUST get the wind pressure for the sign).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
> 
> Quoting "Garner, Robert" <rgarner(--nospam--at)moffattnichol.com>:
> 
>> 
>> ASCE has very successfully made wind design into rocket science.  Way to
>> go ASCE!
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. [mailto:ghodgson(--nospam--at)bellnet.ca]
>> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 4:59 AM
>> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>> Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05
>> 
>> I will take back part of what I said.  The quality of engineering
>> drawings, particularly structural drawings from the US, are very good.
>> However when you read computer instructions, technical manuals, and
>> codes where they have been prepared by engineering organizations, they
>> usually leave something to be desired.  The trouble is that they know
>> all about  their subject but don't realize outsiders are starting from
>> scratch; they just assume everyone will know what they mean..  An
>> example is 1995 ASCE-I bought their Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
>> -- and after reading the seismic requirements three times I was totally
>> lost and thought the problem was me.  So I called a friend at a large
>> engineering company who was assistant head of the industrial department
>> and he said the ASCE seismic parts seem to go in circles.  We agreed to
>> ignore it and use the UBC, I believe.  I wrote a letter of complaint to
>> ASCE and heard nothing back.  If I am not mistaken, there have been a
>> lot of complaints recently about the ASCE wind load requirements.
>> 
>> Christopher Wright wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Oct 20, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Actually makes sense, as engineers are not known for their
>>>> communication ability
>>>> Gary
>>> Not the good ones. Engineering is discipline of communications--we
>>> don't (routinely) make things; we tell people who do how to makes
>>> things properly. That's what drawings and reports are all
>>> about--communicating instructions unambiguously to artisans (for lack
>>> of a better word) can give materials a specific usefulness. We don't
>>> do science or math; we use science and math to make sure the
>>> instructions we communicate are soundly based in physical principles.
>>> 
>>> My own experience is that academics who teach engineering tend to lose
>> 
>>> sight of the need for communications and organization--maybe out of
>>> desire for greater rigor in presentation or just a tendency to impress
>> 
>>> the onlooker with technicalities. I know that's happened with the
>>> Pressure Vessel Codes. With the ASME Codes, I think the problem is
>>> that industry isn't supporting Code writng efforts like they once did,
>> 
>>> and academia has necessarily moved in. I've always suspected (without
>>> an ounce of actual proof) that it's what happened when LRFD was
>>> introduced.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
>>> chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com   | this distance" (last words of Gen.
>>> .......................................| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania
>>> 1864)
>>> http://www.skypoint.com/~chrisw/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>>> *   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
>> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>> 
>> The information contained in the e-Mail, including any accompanying
>> documents or attachments, is from Moffatt & Nichol and is intended
>> only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is
>> privileged and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient,
>> be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or
>> use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you
>> received this message in error, please notify us.
>> 
>> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>> *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> 
> 



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