ASCE 7-10
ASCE 7-10
(OP)
Got the new 2010 in the mail today. That sucker doubled in size from the '05 version.
What's happening here people?
There's a 1961 version of ACI 318 on my company bookshelf that's only 30 pages.
What's happening here people?
There's a 1961 version of ACI 318 on my company bookshelf that's only 30 pages.






RE: ASCE 7-10
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask
RE: ASCE 7-10
When I started my career, the wind load section of the Wisconsin Code was one paragraph: you designed MWFRS for 20 psf for buildings under 50', with the wind load increasing for taller buildings.
How is it that all of those "incorrectly" designed buildings are doing just fine?
DaveAtkins
RE: ASCE 7-10
It is getting ridiculous.
I think the Empire State Building was one of the first tall buildings to even incorporate wind loads and even then I think it was just some nominal lateral load.
I just started really getting familiar with what little changed in 2005!!!!!!! :(
RE: ASCE 7-10
RE: ASCE 7-10
RE: ASCE 7-10
1. seismic map for S1 stayed the same
2. seismic map for Ss decreased acceleration values on average of 0.05 for each curve
3. they turned one chapter of wind into 6 chapters. I seriously wonder who will use ASCE's 6 wind chapters when IBC just simplified theirs.
RE: ASCE 7-10
RE: ASCE 7-10
IV
RE: ASCE 7-10
I blame computers :)
RE: ASCE 7-10
RE: ASCE 7-10
RE: ASCE 7-10
We have these things called factors of safety which help out a lot.
But the point is well taken here. Any building that is still standing is clearly safe and reliable.
RE: ASCE 7-10
Quote:
"Any building that is still standing is clearly safe and reliable."
Could I interpret this statement as: "Any collapsed poor design building is safe and reliable before the moment it collapsed"?
RE: ASCE 7-10
my firm just printed some shirts that say "if you see us running from your building, you'd better keep up."
RE: ASCE 7-10
Under Office Live Loads:
Due to the increased weight of design codes, structural engineering offices shall now be designed for a live load of 100 psf.
RE: ASCE 7-10
Due to the increased loads of some employees....
never mind, maybe that's jut here....
RE: ASCE 7-10
RE: ASCE 7-10
Performing an overly complicated code wind analysis that jibes with some multi-year PhD dissertation based on wind tunnel experiments is "putting lipstick on a pig" if we do not know the real wind speed data beyond two significant figures.
RE: ASCE 7-10
His answer was that even though the earlier codes were adequate, we now know more about corners, eoverhangs, etc. and we need to implement this knowledge. His next statement was that since everyone has access to computers now, more complicated and refined analysis could be performed.
Anyway, that's the mindset of the guys and gals that write codes. Accuracy is more important the ease of use. Get a bigger computer.
RE: ASCE 7-10
Perhaps I'm on my own island, but my company works on oil production facilities and mining and other industries. These are things that mean $1,000,000 a day to the owners. Throwing a little more steel at a problem QUICKLY outweighs the need to save 5% steel weight. Opening facilities a week earlier is much preferred.
I'm OK with complicated and precise codes if only there were quick and conservative alternatives. The madness has got to stop.
RE: ASCE 7-10
In practice, I agree with jsdpe25684, time is now more important than ever. We need clear and concise methods to arrive at solutions so we can spend time actually framing the problem and developing a proper solution. A well devised scheme will save more money in construction and material than any computation with 3 significant figures.
Computers, if anything, can tend to slow us down as we believe we can perform a more rigorous analysis than justified. Obviously computers have use, however, in terms of the codes they offer us little benefit. We now have the ability to quickly analyze 5 limit states and 20 load cases, however, how many engineers can really comprehend such a matrix of results?
RE: ASCE 7-10
All it seems to be doing is making the analysis of structure more complicated.
RE: ASCE 7-10
Between the bunch of us, if we bought only a few copies and critiqued them right here we would discover that they really offer nothing new or better, just a complicated new reformulation. Then talk to your legislators, and building officials, at the state, county and city levels, wherever the adoption decision is made. Their stock in trade is nit-picking on minor code details, and yet, the ones that I have talked to are almost as overwhelmed and frustrated as we are. They can't keep up with it either, and still get any work done. If we explained our position, and reasoning, to them, they might decide the new edition isn't worth adoption, in which case we wouldn't need to buy it. We do probably have to show them that the new version offers no improvements in safety or economy, because that is not normally what they do, without some guidance from practitioners.
For starters, we should just quit buying every damn new edition of all of the codes and all of the new computer programs. We pay a premium for all that crap and all of the new bells and whistles really don't improve our lives or give us better answers, results or designs or really make any of us better engineers. This just keeps enriching the producers of this more and more complicated crap, in effect encouraging them to continue. And each time, we have to stop production and relearn to use this new fangled system or code.
RE: ASCE 7-10
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field
RE: ASCE 7-10
Im getting very frustrated at the concrete anchorage that we have to design for! It seems like every successive code allows less and less load for anchors in concrete! And you think engineers are not exactly the favorite around jobsites now!
And to follow up with vandede427, we actually are becoming more and more like lawyers, as we spend about 90% of our time reading code to make sure we cover our tails, 5% in acutal design, and the last 5% on these forums making sure we did the 95% of our job right!..haha...The only thing separating us from calling ourselves lawyers is the fact that we have an ethical responsibility to keep in mind while designing (just kidding..sort of).