Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: ASCE 7-08

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: Message
Yes, concrete hasn't really changed that much (not quite true...high strength concrete has come a LONG way over that time).  But, our knowledge of concrete has changed.  And that is why codes and standards must be updated.  I will agree that not all changes in the codes and standards reflect positive forward movement.  Sometimes we make things more complex seemingly just for the joy of making it more complex.  But, there are also a lot of new knowledge that go into codes that are good, positive steps forward, even if they might also add some complexity.  But all that is part of human nature.  My best answer to how to stop such things is to get involved.  The more people who take the time and effort to be a productive and vocal part of the process, the easier it becomes to overr rules those that might add complexity for potentially self-serving reasons.  It is always easier to second guess someone else's work, especially with hindsight on your side.
 
Regards,
 
Scott
Adrian, MI
-----Original Message-----
From: Jordan Truesdell, PE [mailto:seaint2(--nospam--at)truesdellengineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:50 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: ASCE 7-08

There _was_ a smiley on the end of that sentence, but... presuming concrete hasn't changed, yes.  Physics, in the realm that we deal, hasn't changed. NACA airfoils developed in mid 20th century still provide the same lift that they did back then, so air hasn't changed either. 

I can't argue that lumber has changed, but the laws of mechanics hasn't.  If you want to update material properties, be my guest.  If you ask me to do 5 hours of calculations to come up with an answer that is 5-10% away from the one I can do in 3 minutes with a pencil, I'd rather you not prohibit me from using the old version.

I'm fine with advancement which materially increases safety or simplifies the job of design (thereby reducing the possibility of errors, and ultimately increasing safety), but many changes don't seem to be falling into either category.  Things seem to be changing for the sake of change (oooh, pretty-shiny!) - where lives are at stake, I'm not a big proponent of that mindset.
Jordan


Ralph Kratz wrote:
I guess you're (facitiously) suggesting that if the 1962 ACI code (my first) had been "right" we wouldn't have had to have all these revisions since then, right?  :)

Ralph


Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 23, 2008, at 4:06 PM, "Jordan Truesdell, PE" <seaint2(--nospam--at)truesdellengineering.com> wrote:

Why not do it right the first time? Then we wouldn't need cycles at all.;-)
Jordan


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