appendix d

huangyhg

appendix d
does anyone else view appendix d as a poor code?
let's take a poll;
how many people use a simpler, or older anchor design routine?
how many people actually use appendix d?
check out our whitepaper library.
appendix d is required.
i sorta just guess....
well, really - i'm trying to use app d - as soon as i write a spreadsheet to do it (best way to learn it).  until then i use the asd bolt table in the ibc.
a guy who worked at my office before i did wrote a spreadsheet on appendix d as his masters report.
in other words, it's not that simple.
sure it's tougher than older ways.  anybody's welcome to come up with a better alternative and argue for its adoption.
there are those around here who are very vocal wrt app. d, but when asked for specific examples of unreasonable results, we hear crickets.
spreadsheet is the obvious way to go for this. i haven't gotten unreasonable results, but it is just the fact that in order to design a couple of bolts embedded in concrete i must to go to a spreadsheet -unless i want to spend a couple of hours to make sure it is exactly correct according to app. d for anything but a simple bolt pattern. .... seems a little unreasonable.
agreed haynewp, but this is true for many things.  wood connection design with all those crazy factors comes to mind.  heck, calculating phimn for an unbraced steel beam takes a good while without tables or a program.
what i'm still waiting for (and maybe it does exist) is for someone to come up with a connection for which app. d gives irrational results as compared to the old ways.
i don't view it as a poor code.  it is a little awkward and slow to use, especially if you haven't used it before.
the limitation on bolt size applicability is irritating.
let's turn it around:
who has experienced a problem (failure) based on the way we used to do it?  i.e. icbo reports, pca methods, ubc anchor bolt allowables, etc?  
i respectfully disagree, jed.  there are factors of safety and the low probability of the worst case design load being on there.  no failures doesn't prove anything.  matching up test results with the equations is the way to go imo.  honestly, i haven't done this with app. d, so don't know whether it's better or not.  i assume it is because that's what the aci folks were probably looking at when they adopted it.
i've read a lot of the background material. app d is much closer to test results than older methods.