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