INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
• Talk With Other Members
• Be Notified Of Responses
• Keyword Search
Favorite Forums
• Automated Signatures
• Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

#### Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

# ASCE 37-02

 Forum Search FAQs Links MVPs

## ASCE 37-02

(OP)
I just bought a copy. Anyone else have one? I am interested in sharing my thoughts...

### RE: ASCE 37-02

I have one, construction loads correct?

### RE: ASCE 37-02

(OP)
Yep!

I've just started reading it and noticed that it references ASCE 7-95 rather than ASCE 7-98 or 7-02. I haven't gotten too far into 37-02 yet. Anything I could stand to be warned about?

### RE: ASCE 37-02

I haven't read much of it either.  I bought it more because of the discount and the "might need it someday" factor.  It's an interesting read for what I've seen.

### RE: ASCE 37-02

(OP)
I just finished reading it three times over...

I'm somewhat "concerned" that it references ASCE 7-95. Should I be troubled that seismic loads during construction conform to ASCE 7-95 rather than 7-02? I almost feel like annotating ASCE 37-02 in order that it might be up to speed with ASCE 7-02 for seismic and wind.

Even thoguh I read through the Standard and Commentary three times, I might have missed the part about adopting more recent standards/codes.

What does genuinely irk me is that I paid for a "new" copyright 2002 standard that contains *some* information that's ten years old.

I am also irked that this "standard" was sold to me for $35 rather than the$15 it's worth (in terms of volume - 33 pages long, in terms of obsolete information - most of it). I suppose I could see paying \$35 for the Standard AND a work book of problems, but ASCE gouged me on this and I'm a member, too! Argh!

I purchased ASCE 37-02 because, for the last several months, I've been requring construction contractors to be in conformance with it. I figured with a title like "Design Loads on Structures During Construction" I couldn't go wrong. Then again, what the heck was I doing specifying something I didn't have! Shame on me. Indeed...

Thoughts? Anyone out there have similar or better/worse stories?

### RE: ASCE 37-02

Indeed, though it is interesting to see how the ASCE handles construction loads, they did us wrong by charging so much for a little pamphlet that references an old document.  I think they could have done better with keeping it up to date, at least by referencing the 7-98.

Are there any problems with the change from fastest mile wind speeds to 3-second gust?  The 7-95 is before my time honestly but I know around there somewhere, I believe with the 7-98, the design wind velocity changed from using the fastest mile to the 3-second gust.

### RE: ASCE 37-02

UcfSE:

ASCE 7-95 used 3-second gust speeds for wind loads.

I gave ASCE 37-02 a very cursory look, I think it would be appropriate to use ASCE 7-02 provisoins for wind & seismic.  The load combinations and load factors in ASCE 37-02 seem to match the ones in ASCE 7-02 quite closely.  I'm not familiar with the seismic provisions in ASCE 7-02, 7-98 and 7-95.  I think it is apprpriate to substitute the more current code provisions, even if the code and the commentary in ASCE 3-02 makes no mention of that.

Regards,

chichuck

### RE: ASCE 37-02

Why are we looking at Seismic loadings for construction operations? That seems like it could be a significant waste of the owner's money.

### RE: ASCE 37-02

(OP)
DRC1,

You have a point. It's addressed in ASCE 37-02, though. The purpose of ASCE 37-02 is to provide a standard for construction works - and the standard takes into account the time/duration of construction, which takes into account the liklihood of an earthquake during that period, etc.

#### Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

#### Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

#### Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Close Box

# Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

• Talk To Other Members
• Notification Of Responses To Questions
• Favorite Forums One Click Access
• Keyword Search Of All Posts, And More...

Register now while it's still free!