RE: Code Distribution Cost

Ouch, I must have hit a nerve.

From: "Donald Bruckman" <bruckmandesign@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:45:03 -0700

>Don't get anyone started on problems with the medical delivery system in
>this country. While their codes may have a part in it, I doubt it is a
>major contributor.

My intent was to show what happens when government control of a profession
goes haywire. For instance, a New York Times article published on July 4
said that some judge disagreed with a a drug manufacturer's contention that
they were was immune from liability when the Food and Drug Administration
approves their drug label. The drug manufacturer, of course, is appealing.
A May 17 Article discussed the medical community's lack of motivation to
give any guarantees or warrantes. Apparently when they make a mistake, the
patient (or their insurance company) pays more to fix it. All this under
"government" control.

Would you like such immunity if the government approves an engineering code
that you use the same way it approves drugs? That can be scary - there is
then no motivation to do a good job because someone will underbid you.
Would our work product be better without the threat of lawsuits or the need
to give warrantees?

What I said was meant to present a different business model than what's used
in engineering and architecture. There's plenty wrong with that model also,
fortunately much more than the one we labor under. But they all get to
drive a Lexus, so they like it.

As for what is a major contributor to that problem, look no further than
where political contributions to politicians come from.

----Original Message Follows----

>This is particularly true for us architects since we design
>buildings with a wide variety of uses, from apartments to restaurants, all
>of which use different codes.

Engineers have the same problem. The only thing, which is not worth
discussing unless some tea and crumpets are being served, is who has it
worse, and who can cause the most suffering (architects or engineers) when
following it turns out to be a mistake.

>There could be architecture package subscriptions, structural packages,
>etc.
>sort of like an HBO package on TV. That way, all this errata discussion
>this board had last week just vaporizes since the code is on a central
>server that can be updated at any time by the authors much like any
>software
>patch.

>Imagine this. Log onto your subscription, tell the server the location of
>your project, size, type, etc. and the system automatically loads relevant
>codes as well as all the local annotations to the model code; automatically
>loads the seismic proximity constants, fire dept requirements, health
>department annotations,...the list could be endless of how you could tailor
>the thing.

That's an idea. I do have some concerns on how to document what version of
an electronic download was used. (Almost every engineering drawing I've come
across simply says "latest codes" were used, whatever that means, and that
bothers me some.)

>But NO, I have to drive to a bookstore and buy the dang thing like it was
>the latest novel from Stephen King. How 20th century can you get?

19th, not 20th.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* 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@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

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

SE Education

 

Scott and Friends:

 

I received a BSCE in January 1970 from a leading Big Ten university that is now famous for its success with concrete canoes.  If I recall correctly, my degree required 142 hours (or credits) with very few electives.  I took the maximum number of structures courses available and spent every summer as an intern doing engineering work.  Nevertheless, by the end of the fourth year, I felt that I needed further education to form a basis for a successful career in structural engineering.  Without hesitation, I continued on and received a MSCE in January 1971.  Then I rushed down to Texas to seek my fortune.

 

Today, an American BSCE degree requires an average of only 124 hours, and some have dropped to as little as 120 hours.  This has been primarily caused by state legislators promising their constituents that their sons and daughters can get four-year degrees in four years, regardless of major.  To make matters worse, the bleeding hearts in our society have come along and demanded that a big chunk of those 120-124 hours must be spent on liberal arts subjects, such as diversity and environmental consciousness.  The result is that nearly all current BSCE degrees amount to little more than ICE (Introduction to Civil Engineering) degrees.  With notable exceptions like Scott, most now agree that there is a problem with educating the structural engineer of the future.  So far, at least two paths have been devised to address this.

 

NCSEA has listed a specific series of design and analysis courses that structural engineering students should complete.  If I am not mistaken, these courses are (or will eventually be) required for certification by the Structural Engineering Certification Board.

 

ASCE, seeking both depth and breadth, has taken a different path.  Their Policy 465, sometimes referred to as the "Raise the Bar" initiative, was adopted by NCEES last September.  Under the revised NCEES Model Law, candidates will not be permitted to take the PE exam after December 2014 unless they have completed at least 30 hours of relevant additional education after obtaining a BS engineering degree.  This assumes that all or most states will have adopted the Model Law, or something similar to it, by that time.  This is likely to occur, since some states are already doing so.  Working back the timetable, these requirements will apply to all students who have just completed their freshman years and to all of those who follow.  It should also be noted that neither Policy 465 nor the NCEES Model Law require a student to obtain a MS engineering degree.

 

Okay Scott, I will now look forward to your multi-screen rebuttal.  Please start with restaurant recommendations for downtown Detroit.  I find that I will be sequestered there from July 12-15  on ASCE business.  This is not at all how I had intended to spend my 60th birthday.  What is within a short walk of the Marriott Renaissance?

 

Best regards,

 

Stan R. Caldwell, P.E., F.ASCE, F.AEI

ASCE Technical Region Director

Halff Associates Vice President

... Soggy in Dallas ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

RE: Code Distribution Cost (was RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions)

There is such a service already:

http://engineers.ihs.com/products/standards/specs-standards/10reasons.ht
m

Check their "Construction" package for typical structural codes. I
don't know what their costs are for individual subscriptions - they tend
to cater to larger engineering and manufacturing organizations. If you
get a quote from them as an individual, let us know what there price
range is for structural code service.

Bill Sherman
CH2M HILL / DEN
720-286-2792

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Bruckman [mailto:bruckmandesign@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 10:45 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Code Distribution Cost (was RE: View proposed ACI 318
revisions)

Don't get anyone started on problems with the medical delivery system in
this country. While their codes may have a part in it, I doubt it is a
major contributor.

Here's an approach that might work. What if anyone that wanted to use
these codes bought into a global, all encompassing service that allowed
total access to all the codes.

That way, on the rare occasion that I actually would need to read some
obscure ASTM or ASCE standard, I'd simply log on and go to the search
tool.
Why should I have to belong to 55 different organizations to get access
to the tools of my trade, some of which I will use maybe a dozen times
in an entire career? This is particularly true for us architects since
we design buildings with a wide variety of uses, from apartments to
restaurants, all of which use different codes.

There could be architecture package subscriptions, structural packages,
etc.
sort of like an HBO package on TV. That way, all this errata discussion
this board had last week just vaporizes since the code is on a central
server that can be updated at any time by the authors much like any
software patch.

Imagine this. Log onto your subscription, tell the server the location
of your project, size, type, etc. and the system automatically loads
relevant codes as well as all the local annotations to the model code;
automatically loads the seismic proximity constants, fire dept
requirements, health department annotations,...the list could be endless
of how you could tailor the thing.

But NO, I have to drive to a bookstore and buy the dang thing like it
was the latest novel from Stephen King. How 20th century can you get?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Pixley [mailto:r_pixley@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 8:59 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Code Distribution Cost (was RE: View proposed ACI 318
revisions)

They still do. Its called a law or statute. What the government does
is adapt these codes as a part of the law, but lets the profession write
and defend them. That's why a legalistic language style is used, so
they can be

adapted as a law with no change. What's in dispute in this thread is the
business model used to distribute them because of the expense to the
individual members of the profession who have little say on what that
business model should be.

On the business model used to develop such codes, do you really want the
government to do that? The medical profession works that way (ever hear
of CPT and diagnostic codes?), and look at how badly and disrespectfuly
the customer's (err..patient's) pocketbook is being treated.

----Original Message Follows----
From: Scott E Maxwell <smaxwell@umich.edu>

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:06:01 -0400 (EDT)

Talk to your government. There is nothing stopping governments from
writing

their own codes. In fact, that is kind what used to be a long time
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@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@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@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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: Code Distribution Cost (was RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions)

Actually, you can "drive" to the website of the entity that publishes the
code/book that you need and either 1) buy and have shipped a hard copy (if
you like the old fashioned "20th century" way of reading something on paper)
or 2) buy and download (or in some cases have a CD shipped) an electronic
version. The fact that you want to drive your car is purely your choice.
<grin>

As to your scenario, it is a nice thought...for you and other practitioners.
But, you neglect to factor in reality. And reality is that the entities
that publish the codes are businesses (albeit usually non-profits). As
such, they still must pay bills and have expenses. As such, they must have
some sort of business model that allows them to make enough money to operate
and be in a position to actually publish the codes. So, while your idea
might be a nice idea, it may not be a sufficient business model to support
the work necessary to publish the codes. As such, it might work well from
your perspective, but might end up being a complete non-starter from the
perspective of those that actually put out the codes.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Bruckman [mailto:bruckmandesign@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 12:45 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Code Distribution Cost (was RE: View proposed ACI 318
revisions)

Don't get anyone started on problems with the medical delivery system in
this country. While their codes may have a part in it, I doubt it is a
major contributor.

Here's an approach that might work. What if anyone that wanted to use these
codes bought into a global, all encompassing service that allowed total
access to all the codes.

That way, on the rare occasion that I actually would need to read some
obscure ASTM or ASCE standard, I'd simply log on and go to the search tool.
Why should I have to belong to 55 different organizations to get access to
the tools of my trade, some of which I will use maybe a dozen times in an
entire career? This is particularly true for us architects since we design
buildings with a wide variety of uses, from apartments to restaurants, all
of which use different codes.

There could be architecture package subscriptions, structural packages, etc.
sort of like an HBO package on TV. That way, all this errata discussion
this board had last week just vaporizes since the code is on a central
server that can be updated at any time by the authors much like any software
patch.

Imagine this. Log onto your subscription, tell the server the location of
your project, size, type, etc. and the system automatically loads relevant
codes as well as all the local annotations to the model code; automatically
loads the seismic proximity constants, fire dept requirements, health
department annotations,...the list could be endless of how you could tailor
the thing.

But NO, I have to drive to a bookstore and buy the dang thing like it was
the latest novel from Stephen King. How 20th century can you get?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Pixley [mailto:r_pixley@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 8:59 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Code Distribution Cost (was RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions)

They still do. Its called a law or statute. What the government does is
adapt these codes as a part of the law, but lets the profession write and
defend them. That's why a legalistic language style is used, so they can be

adapted as a law with no change. What's in dispute in this thread is the
business model used to distribute them because of the expense to the
individual members of the profession who have little say on what that
business model should be.

On the business model used to develop such codes, do you really want the
government to do that? The medical profession works that way (ever hear of
CPT and diagnostic codes?), and look at how badly and disrespectfuly the
customer's (err..patient's) pocketbook is being treated.

----Original Message Follows----
From: Scott E Maxwell <smaxwell@umich.edu>

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:06:01 -0400 (EDT)

Talk to your government. There is nothing stopping governments from writing

their own codes. In fact, that is kind what used to be a long time 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@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@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@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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

Too bad...  Code writing and implementation appear among those few instances where the governmental involvement would be a good and productive thing. 

 

V. Steve Gordin, SE
Irvine CA

----- Original Message -----

From: Scott Maxwell

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 10:19

Subject: RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

Nice dream...<>...and I dare say there a LOT more people who care about the issue of
universal healthcare than they do about a national building code by the
government.

Scott
Adrian, MI

RE: Code Distribution Cost (was RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions)

First of all, I don't have much of a problem with the system that is in
place right now. It is all the people that complain about the cost that
seem to think that there is a better way.

Second, I would argue it is more than just a business model. And I would
disagree...the government does NOT write their own codes...they write their
own LAWS that then adopt codes that are written by private organizations.
There is a difference. If the government actually wrote the codes, then the
government could fund that process and the code could be distributed "free"
(not really...we would just pay for it a different way...a little thing
called taxes...but on the "positive" side, the taxes would be spread out to
everyone not just people using the codes...unless they go with "use taxes").

Now, you can argue that the private organizations use a business model in
terms of how they fund the code development and publishing process. That
business model is largely a function of people having to pay for the codes
and to some degree they might pay more for the codes than just the code
writing/publishing itself might require so that those organizations can fund
their other operations....right or wrong...good or bad.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Pixley [mailto:r_pixley@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 11:59 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Code Distribution Cost (was RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions)

They still do. Its called a law or statute. What the government does is
adapt these codes as a part of the law, but lets the profession write and
defend them. That's why a legalistic language style is used, so they can be

adapted as a law with no change. What's in dispute in this thread is the
business model used to distribute them because of the expense to the
individual members of the profession who have little say on what that
business model should be.

On the business model used to develop such codes, do you really want the
government to do that? The medical profession works that way (ever hear of
CPT and diagnostic codes?), and look at how badly and disrespectfuly the
customer's (err..patient's) pocketbook is being treated.

----Original Message Follows----
From: Scott E Maxwell <smaxwell@umich.edu>

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:06:01 -0400 (EDT)

Talk to your government. There is nothing stopping governments from writing

their own codes. In fact, that is kind what used to be a long time 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@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@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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

Nice dream...and then the bird sitting above you while you doze on the park
bench wakes you up with a little present from above right to the forehead.
<grin>

Not saying it could not be done, but it is EXTREMELY unlikely. After all
Canada has unversal healthcare (whether or not you consider it as being a
good thing or not is not the point), but the US is no where near doing such
a thing...and I dare say there a LOT more people who care about the issue of
universal healthcare than they do about a national building code by the
government.

Scott
Adrian, MI

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary L. Hodgson and Assoc. [mailto:ghodgson@bellnet.ca]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 8:49 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

I know I have said this before but perhaps you should look at the
Canadian model. The National Building Code is written by the The
National Research Council's (an independent creation of the government)
Institute for Research in Construction, and is up-dated every *five*
years. It is then adopted into law by the provinces with or without
additions and/or changes. The various standards (steel, concrete, wood,
etc) then follow that time period and some of the various trade
organizations will even comment on whether the changes are significant
or not, so you can decide whether to wait another 5 years. I know a
couple of guys operating with codes that are 20 years old - too chancey
for me. I think if you were to get together, you might influence some
changes (you can dream).
Gary

Scott E Maxwell wrote:
> Talk to your government. There is nothing stopping governments from
> writing their own codes. In fact, that is kind what used to be a long
> time ago...but then people started working in broader geographic areas
> and they did not want to have to deal with dozens of different codes.
> Still, there is nothing stopping the federal government from writing a
> National Building Code (the Constitution may stop the federal
> government from forcing that code on all the states...so called
> "states' rights" and all), except all the people who don't want to pay
> taxes for things that benefit us all but most don't consider a
> priority (everyone sure likes a nice, well built road, but don't seem
> to want to pay the taxes that support the building of those roads and
> other such things). Anyways, good luck on getting Congress to agree
> to do that when they can seem to do the more visiable things like
> immigration and healthcare.
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Donald Bruckman wrote:
>
>>
>> This all gets back to our discussion last month about code costs.
>> When you
>> think about it, the free enterprise approach to code writing, (i.e.
>> private
>> companies like ICC doing code writing) is really antithetical to true
>> quality engineering. It's the equivalent of Apple vs Microsoft, open
>> code
>> vs proprietary code. How many engineers would just choose to ignore
>> some
>> obscure and minor requirement hidden in a $2000 code they knew would
>> have
>> minimal effect on the overall design?
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Wright [mailto:chrisw@skypoint.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 10:34 AM
>> To: seaint@seaint.org
>> Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions
>>
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Garner, Robert wrote:
>>
>>> With Codes becoming available electronically, how about a consortium
>>> of a group of engineers that collectively buy and "share" the codes
>>> electronically. Only one engineer could view any one of the codes
>>> at a time but with a good share schedule set up, it might work. As
>>> it is now, the AWS code is not in my budget so I can't see it
>>> anytime. Being able to at least see it between 4:00 and 6:00 pm on
>>> Wednesdays and Thursdays is better than nothing. Sort of a Code
>>> "time share".
>> I think this is a damn good idea. Something like it might be a reason
>> to keep up membership in technical societies. I don't know how the
>> ASCE or the ACI fares these days, but the ASME is falling on
>> increasingly harder times, primarily because there's fewer reasons to
>> belong. Students flock in because it looks good on a resume and the
>> dues aren't very high, but membership by experienced engineers tapers
>> off really fast, except for dyed-in-the-wool joiners.
>>
>> One of the things they should do is offer on-line Code access to
>> members as a perk of membership. Full purchase of all umpteen volumes
>> of the Boiler Code is close to $2000. and the codes are re-issued
>> every 3 years. There are good reasons for some people to have
>> personal copies, but many of us can't possibly justify 2 grand every
>> three years on the off chance that we might need something in some
>> obscure section. The ASME, like every other society, makes pretty
>> good money in the publishing business, but they need to look further
>> than the end of their collective noses when it comes to member
>> benefits. Code access, even limited to so many log-ons a month, would
>> be a good one.
>>
>> Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
>> chrisw@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@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@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@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@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@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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: Code Distribution Cost (was RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions)

Don't get anyone started on problems with the medical delivery system in
this country. While their codes may have a part in it, I doubt it is a
major contributor.

Here's an approach that might work. What if anyone that wanted to use these
codes bought into a global, all encompassing service that allowed total
access to all the codes.

That way, on the rare occasion that I actually would need to read some
obscure ASTM or ASCE standard, I'd simply log on and go to the search tool.
Why should I have to belong to 55 different organizations to get access to
the tools of my trade, some of which I will use maybe a dozen times in an
entire career? This is particularly true for us architects since we design
buildings with a wide variety of uses, from apartments to restaurants, all
of which use different codes.

There could be architecture package subscriptions, structural packages, etc.
sort of like an HBO package on TV. That way, all this errata discussion
this board had last week just vaporizes since the code is on a central
server that can be updated at any time by the authors much like any software
patch.

Imagine this. Log onto your subscription, tell the server the location of
your project, size, type, etc. and the system automatically loads relevant
codes as well as all the local annotations to the model code; automatically
loads the seismic proximity constants, fire dept requirements, health
department annotations,...the list could be endless of how you could tailor
the thing.

But NO, I have to drive to a bookstore and buy the dang thing like it was
the latest novel from Stephen King. How 20th century can you get?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Pixley [mailto:r_pixley@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 8:59 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Code Distribution Cost (was RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions)

They still do. Its called a law or statute. What the government does is
adapt these codes as a part of the law, but lets the profession write and
defend them. That's why a legalistic language style is used, so they can be

adapted as a law with no change. What's in dispute in this thread is the
business model used to distribute them because of the expense to the
individual members of the profession who have little say on what that
business model should be.

On the business model used to develop such codes, do you really want the
government to do that? The medical profession works that way (ever hear of
CPT and diagnostic codes?), and look at how badly and disrespectfuly the
customer's (err..patient's) pocketbook is being treated.

----Original Message Follows----
From: Scott E Maxwell <smaxwell@umich.edu>

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:06:01 -0400 (EDT)

Talk to your government. There is nothing stopping governments from writing

their own codes. In fact, that is kind what used to be a long time 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@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@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

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

Re: Code Distribution Cost (was RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions)

On Jul 7, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Ray Pixley wrote:

> On the business model used to develop such codes, do you really
> want the government to do that?
The government writes all the rest of the laws--what's the difference
with the Codes?

Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
chrisw@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@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

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

Lag Screws in Withdrawal

I have the specs (in the handbook) on edge, and end, distances for lag screws.  For withdrawal limits, is there a different spec or would I use distances for across or with-grain?

 

TIA

 

Thor A. Tandy P.Eng, MIStructE, Struct Eng

Victoria, BC

Canada

vicpeng@telus.net

Code Distribution Cost (was RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions)

They still do. Its called a law or statute. What the government does is
adapt these codes as a part of the law, but lets the profession write and
defend them. That's why a legalistic language style is used, so they can be
adapted as a law with no change. What's in dispute in this thread is the
business model used to distribute them because of the expense to the
individual members of the profession who have little say on what that
business model should be.

On the business model used to develop such codes, do you really want the
government to do that? The medical profession works that way (ever hear of
CPT and diagnostic codes?), and look at how badly and disrespectfuly the
customer's (err..patient's) pocketbook is being treated.

----Original Message Follows----
From: Scott E Maxwell <smaxwell@umich.edu>

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:06:01 -0400 (EDT)

Talk to your government. There is nothing stopping governments from writing
their own codes. In fact, that is kind what used to be a long time 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@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

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

Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

I know I have said this before but perhaps you should look at the
Canadian model. The National Building Code is written by the The
National Research Council's (an independent creation of the government)
Institute for Research in Construction, and is up-dated every *five*
years. It is then adopted into law by the provinces with or without
additions and/or changes. The various standards (steel, concrete, wood,
etc) then follow that time period and some of the various trade
organizations will even comment on whether the changes are significant
or not, so you can decide whether to wait another 5 years. I know a
couple of guys operating with codes that are 20 years old - too chancey
for me. I think if you were to get together, you might influence some
changes (you can dream).
Gary

Scott E Maxwell wrote:
> Talk to your government. There is nothing stopping governments from
> writing their own codes. In fact, that is kind what used to be a long
> time ago...but then people started working in broader geographic areas
> and they did not want to have to deal with dozens of different codes.
> Still, there is nothing stopping the federal government from writing a
> National Building Code (the Constitution may stop the federal
> government from forcing that code on all the states...so called
> "states' rights" and all), except all the people who don't want to pay
> taxes for things that benefit us all but most don't consider a
> priority (everyone sure likes a nice, well built road, but don't seem
> to want to pay the taxes that support the building of those roads and
> other such things). Anyways, good luck on getting Congress to agree
> to do that when they can seem to do the more visiable things like
> immigration and healthcare.
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Donald Bruckman wrote:
>
>>
>> This all gets back to our discussion last month about code costs.
>> When you
>> think about it, the free enterprise approach to code writing, (i.e.
>> private
>> companies like ICC doing code writing) is really antithetical to true
>> quality engineering. It's the equivalent of Apple vs Microsoft, open
>> code
>> vs proprietary code. How many engineers would just choose to ignore
>> some
>> obscure and minor requirement hidden in a $2000 code they knew would
>> have
>> minimal effect on the overall design?
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Wright [mailto:chrisw@skypoint.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 10:34 AM
>> To: seaint@seaint.org
>> Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions
>>
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Garner, Robert wrote:
>>
>>> With Codes becoming available electronically, how about a
>>> consortium of a group of engineers that collectively buy and
>>> "share" the codes electronically. Only one engineer could view any
>>> one of the codes at a time but with a good share schedule set up,
>>> it might work. As it is now, the AWS code is not in my budget so I
>>> can't see it anytime. Being able to at least see it between 4:00
>>> and 6:00 pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays is better than nothing.
>>> Sort of a Code "time share".
>> I think this is a damn good idea. Something like it might be a reason
>> to keep up membership in technical societies. I don't know how the
>> ASCE or the ACI fares these days, but the ASME is falling on
>> increasingly harder times, primarily because there's fewer reasons to
>> belong. Students flock in because it looks good on a resume and the
>> dues aren't very high, but membership by experienced engineers tapers
>> off really fast, except for dyed-in-the-wool joiners.
>>
>> One of the things they should do is offer on-line Code access to
>> members as a perk of membership. Full purchase of all umpteen volumes
>> of the Boiler Code is close to $2000. and the codes are re-issued
>> every 3 years. There are good reasons for some people to have
>> personal copies, but many of us can't possibly justify 2 grand every
>> three years on the off chance that we might need something in some
>> obscure section. The ASME, like every other society, makes pretty
>> good money in the publishing business, but they need to look further
>> than the end of their collective noses when it comes to member
>> benefits. Code access, even limited to so many log-ons a month, would
>> be a good one.
>>
>> Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
>> chrisw@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@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@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@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@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

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

RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

Ain’t that the truth.

 

T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.

ALLEN DESIGNS

Consulting Structural Engineers
 V (949) 248-8588 • F(949) 209-2509

 

<snip>

 

I can take any one of these geniuses to a job site and show them section depths to rebar

that varies by fifty percent, and lets see which has more impact on Masonry design

 

unfrieking believable

 

 

 

Tarek Mokhtar, SE

Laguna Beach, CA

Codes for "free"

Add the following to your Project Specifications on your next large project: "Contractor shall maintain on-site, one copy of all codes referenced herein.  In addition, Contractor shall furnish the Engineer with one copy of all codes referenced herein". 

 

In the end, our clients "pay" for our codes anyway.  Why not just be up front about it?

 

Bob

 

R. Garner

Moffatt & Nichol

Tel.:  (619) 220-6050

Fax.: (619) 220-6055

e-mail: rgarner@moffattnichol.com

 

RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

Libraries are great in principal but since Sandy Eggo, through
underfunded pension plans etc., has squandered most of it's money,
libraries here sure can't spend even hundreds of dollars on code books
that less than 3% of the population will read.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott E Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell@umich.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 2:00 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

Um, library anyone? :-) While not as convenient as electronic, online
version, that is basically what you are talking about.

Scott
Adrian, MI

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Garner, Robert wrote:

>
> With Codes becoming available electronically, how about a consortium
of
> a group of engineers that collectively buy and "share" the codes
> electronically. Only one engineer could view any one of the codes at
a
> time but with a good share schedule set up, it might work. As it is
> now, the AWS code is not in my budget so I can't see it anytime.
Being
> able to at least see it between 4:00 and 6:00 pm on Wednesdays and
> Thursdays is better than nothing. Sort of a Code "time share".
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Bill Cain [mailto:bcainse@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 9:04 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions
>
>
>
> Bill-
> [sarcasm on]
> How are those poor professors under their "publish or perish systems"
> going to survive if they don't have a frequent forum to harrass us
poor
> working stiffs by proposing changes to codes that provide little or no
> additional safety, reliability or other benefit but provide additional
> codes checks that must be done for the same fee?
> [sarcasm off]
> Regards,
> Bill Cain SE
> Berkeley CA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bill@polhemus.cc
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Sent: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 6:09 am
> Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions
>
> ACI 318-08?
>
> <SARCASM>
>
> Well, so much for going back to the six-year code revision cycle. Be
> prepared to
> continue shelling out $200 every three years, everyone.
>
> </SARCASM>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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@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 <http://www.seaint.org/>
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> ________________________________
>
> size=2 width="100%" align=center>
>
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437> .
>
>
>
> 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@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@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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

Talk to your government. There is nothing stopping governments from
writing their own codes. In fact, that is kind what used to be a long
time ago...but then people started working in broader geographic areas and
they did not want to have to deal with dozens of different codes. Still,
there is nothing stopping the federal government from writing a National
Building Code (the Constitution may stop the federal government from
forcing that code on all the states...so called "states' rights" and all),
except all the people who don't want to pay taxes for things that benefit
us all but most don't consider a priority (everyone sure likes a nice,
well built road, but don't seem to want to pay the taxes that support the
building of those roads and other such things). Anyways, good luck on
getting Congress to agree to do that when they can seem to do the more
visiable things like immigration and healthcare.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Donald Bruckman wrote:

>
> This all gets back to our discussion last month about code costs. When you
> think about it, the free enterprise approach to code writing, (i.e. private
> companies like ICC doing code writing) is really antithetical to true
> quality engineering. It's the equivalent of Apple vs Microsoft, open code
> vs proprietary code. How many engineers would just choose to ignore some
> obscure and minor requirement hidden in a $2000 code they knew would have
> minimal effect on the overall design?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Wright [mailto:chrisw@skypoint.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 10:34 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions
>
>
> On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Garner, Robert wrote:
>
>> With Codes becoming available electronically, how about a
>> consortium of a group of engineers that collectively buy and
>> "share" the codes electronically. Only one engineer could view any
>> one of the codes at a time but with a good share schedule set up,
>> it might work. As it is now, the AWS code is not in my budget so I
>> can't see it anytime. Being able to at least see it between 4:00
>> and 6:00 pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays is better than nothing.
>> Sort of a Code "time share".
> I think this is a damn good idea. Something like it might be a reason
> to keep up membership in technical societies. I don't know how the
> ASCE or the ACI fares these days, but the ASME is falling on
> increasingly harder times, primarily because there's fewer reasons to
> belong. Students flock in because it looks good on a resume and the
> dues aren't very high, but membership by experienced engineers tapers
> off really fast, except for dyed-in-the-wool joiners.
>
> One of the things they should do is offer on-line Code access to
> members as a perk of membership. Full purchase of all umpteen volumes
> of the Boiler Code is close to $2000. and the codes are re-issued
> every 3 years. There are good reasons for some people to have
> personal copies, but many of us can't possibly justify 2 grand every
> three years on the off chance that we might need something in some
> obscure section. The ASME, like every other society, makes pretty
> good money in the publishing business, but they need to look further
> than the end of their collective noses when it comes to member
> benefits. Code access, even limited to so many log-ons a month, would
> be a good one.
>
> Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
> chrisw@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@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@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@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

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

RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

Um, library anyone? :-) While not as convenient as electronic, online
version, that is basically what you are talking about.

Scott
Adrian, MI

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Garner, Robert wrote:

>
> With Codes becoming available electronically, how about a consortium of
> a group of engineers that collectively buy and "share" the codes
> electronically. Only one engineer could view any one of the codes at a
> time but with a good share schedule set up, it might work. As it is
> now, the AWS code is not in my budget so I can't see it anytime. Being
> able to at least see it between 4:00 and 6:00 pm on Wednesdays and
> Thursdays is better than nothing. Sort of a Code "time share".
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Bill Cain [mailto:bcainse@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 9:04 AM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions
>
>
>
> Bill-
> [sarcasm on]
> How are those poor professors under their "publish or perish systems"
> going to survive if they don't have a frequent forum to harrass us poor
> working stiffs by proposing changes to codes that provide little or no
> additional safety, reliability or other benefit but provide additional
> codes checks that must be done for the same fee?
> [sarcasm off]
> Regards,
> Bill Cain SE
> Berkeley CA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bill@polhemus.cc
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Sent: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 6:09 am
> Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions
>
> ACI 318-08?
>
> <SARCASM>
>
> Well, so much for going back to the six-year code revision cycle. Be
> prepared to
> continue shelling out $200 every three years, everyone.
>
> </SARCASM>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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@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 <http://www.seaint.org/>
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> ________________________________
>
> size=2 width="100%" align=center>
>
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437> .
>
>
>
> 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@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

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

Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

But, it would take WAY more than an hour!!! ;-)

Scott
Adrian, MI

P.S. Since you thought of me without me having to spend more than an hour
berating you, my job is done! <grin>

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Jordan Truesdell, PE wrote:

> Oh, see, now I think you did that just to make Scott waste another hour
> berating us about the cost of code development.
> Jordan
>
> bill@polhemus.cc wrote:
>> ACI 318-08?
>>
>> <SARCASM>
>>
>> Well, so much for going back to the six-year code revision cycle. Be
>> prepared to continue shelling out $200 every three years, everyone.
>>
>> </SARCASM>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * 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@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@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

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

Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

Tarek,

 

        You also didn't mention the % difference in concrete strength for material actually delivered to the job site.

 

Regards,

 

H. Daryl Richardson

----- Original Message -----

From: Tarek Mokhtar

To: seaint@seaint.org

Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 12:47 PM

Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

Bill,

I think what you said here applies without sarcasm to the new Masonry code, which in my opinion

was purely a change for the sake of change. As an example, the code writers in their infinite wisdom

decided to come up with a new stress block distribution, thus rendering all these nifty tables

for flexural coefficients that were used successfully for umpteenth years useless.

All this because it is more "accurate" (It varies by about three percent from the current code).

I can take any one of these geniuses to a job site and show them section depths to rebar

that varies by fifty percent, and lets see which has more impact on Masonry design

unfrieking believable

Tarek Mokhtar, SE

Laguna Beach, CA

Bill-
[sarcasm on]
How are those poor professors under their "publish or perish systems" going to survive if they don't have a frequent forum to harrass us poor working stiffs by proposing changes to codes that provide little or no additional safety, reliability or other benefit but provide additional codes checks that must be done for the same fee?
[sarcasm off]
Regards,
Bill Cain SE
Berkeley CA


-----Original Message-----
From: bill@polhemus.cc
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 6:09 am
Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

ACI 318-08?

<SARCASM>

Well, so much for going back to the six-year code revision cycle. Be prepared to
continue shelling out $200 every three years, everyone.

</SARCASM>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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@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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

---

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

--  

Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

Bill,

I think what you said here applies without sarcasm to the new Masonry code, which in my opinion

was purely a change for the sake of change. As an example, the code writers in their infinite wisdom

decided to come up with a new stress block distribution, thus rendering all these nifty tables

for flexural coefficients that were used successfully for umpteenth years useless.

All this because it is more "accurate" (It varies by about three percent from the current code).

I can take any one of these geniuses to a job site and show them section depths to rebar

that varies by fifty percent, and lets see which has more impact on Masonry design

unfrieking believable

Tarek Mokhtar, SE

Laguna Beach, CA

Bill-
[sarcasm on]
How are those poor professors under their "publish or perish systems" going to survive if they don't have a frequent forum to harrass us poor working stiffs by proposing changes to codes that provide little or no additional safety, reliability or other benefit but provide additional codes checks that must be done for the same fee?
[sarcasm off]
Regards,
Bill Cain SE
Berkeley CA


-----Original Message-----
From: bill@polhemus.cc
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 6:09 am
Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

ACI 318-08?

<SARCASM>

Well, so much for going back to the six-year code revision cycle. Be prepared to
continue shelling out $200 every three years, everyone.

</SARCASM>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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@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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

---

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

--  

RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

This all gets back to our discussion last month about code costs. When you
think about it, the free enterprise approach to code writing, (i.e. private
companies like ICC doing code writing) is really antithetical to true
quality engineering. It's the equivalent of Apple vs Microsoft, open code
vs proprietary code. How many engineers would just choose to ignore some
obscure and minor requirement hidden in a $2000 code they knew would have
minimal effect on the overall design?

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Wright [mailto:chrisw@skypoint.com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 10:34 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Garner, Robert wrote:

> With Codes becoming available electronically, how about a
> consortium of a group of engineers that collectively buy and
> "share" the codes electronically. Only one engineer could view any
> one of the codes at a time but with a good share schedule set up,
> it might work. As it is now, the AWS code is not in my budget so I
> can't see it anytime. Being able to at least see it between 4:00
> and 6:00 pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays is better than nothing.
> Sort of a Code "time share".
I think this is a damn good idea. Something like it might be a reason
to keep up membership in technical societies. I don't know how the
ASCE or the ACI fares these days, but the ASME is falling on
increasingly harder times, primarily because there's fewer reasons to
belong. Students flock in because it looks good on a resume and the
dues aren't very high, but membership by experienced engineers tapers
off really fast, except for dyed-in-the-wool joiners.

One of the things they should do is offer on-line Code access to
members as a perk of membership. Full purchase of all umpteen volumes
of the Boiler Code is close to $2000. and the codes are re-issued
every 3 years. There are good reasons for some people to have
personal copies, but many of us can't possibly justify 2 grand every
three years on the off chance that we might need something in some
obscure section. The ASME, like every other society, makes pretty
good money in the publishing business, but they need to look further
than the end of their collective noses when it comes to member
benefits. Code access, even limited to so many log-ons a month, would
be a good one.

Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
chrisw@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@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@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

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

Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

Now _THAT_ was funny !

-g

On 7/6/07, Jordan Truesdell, PE <seaint1@truesdellengineering.com > wrote:

Oh, see, now I think you did that just to make Scott waste another hour
berating us about the cost of code development.

Jordan

bill@polhemus.cc wrote:
> ACI 318-08?
>
> <SARCASM>
>
> Well, so much for going back to the six-year code revision cycle. Be prepared to continue shelling out $200 every three years, everyone.
>
> </SARCASM>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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@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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

--
-gm

Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Garner, Robert wrote:

> With Codes becoming available electronically, how about a
> consortium of a group of engineers that collectively buy and
> "share" the codes electronically. Only one engineer could view any
> one of the codes at a time but with a good share schedule set up,
> it might work. As it is now, the AWS code is not in my budget so I
> can't see it anytime. Being able to at least see it between 4:00
> and 6:00 pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays is better than nothing.
> Sort of a Code "time share".
I think this is a damn good idea. Something like it might be a reason
to keep up membership in technical societies. I don't know how the
ASCE or the ACI fares these days, but the ASME is falling on
increasingly harder times, primarily because there's fewer reasons to
belong. Students flock in because it looks good on a resume and the
dues aren't very high, but membership by experienced engineers tapers
off really fast, except for dyed-in-the-wool joiners.

One of the things they should do is offer on-line Code access to
members as a perk of membership. Full purchase of all umpteen volumes
of the Boiler Code is close to $2000. and the codes are re-issued
every 3 years. There are good reasons for some people to have
personal copies, but many of us can't possibly justify 2 grand every
three years on the off chance that we might need something in some
obscure section. The ASME, like every other society, makes pretty
good money in the publishing business, but they need to look further
than the end of their collective noses when it comes to member
benefits. Code access, even limited to so many log-ons a month, would
be a good one.

Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant at
chrisw@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@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

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

RE: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

If what you suggest does happen, the cost of each update will be $2000 instead of $200. Budget numbers for the seller must add up!

Rajendran

"Garner, Robert" <rgarner@moffattnichol.com> wrote:

With Codes becoming available electronically, how about a consortium of a group of engineers that collectively buy and "share" the codes electronically.  Only one engineer could view any one of the codes at a time but with a good share schedule set up, it might work.  As it is now, the AWS code is not in my budget so I can't see it anytime.  Being able to at least see it between 4:00 and 6:00 pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays is better than nothing.  Sort of a Code "time share".

 

Bob

 

 

 

---

From: Bill Cain [mailto:bcainse@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 9:04 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

 

Bill-
[sarcasm on]
How are those poor professors under their "publish or perish systems" going to survive if they don't have a frequent forum to harrass us poor working stiffs by proposing changes to codes that provide little or no additional safety, reliability or other benefit but provide additional codes checks that must be done for the same fee?
[sarcasm off]
Regards,
Bill Cain SE
Berkeley CA


-----Original Message-----
From: bill@polhemus.cc
To: seaint@seaint.org
Sent: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 6:09 am
Subject: Re: View proposed ACI 318 revisions

ACI 318-08?

<SARCASM>

Well, so much for going back to the six-year code revision cycle. Be prepared to 

continue shelling out $200 every three years, everyone.

</SARCASM>

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

*   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@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 

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

---

size=2 width="100%" align=center>

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

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.

---

Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.