structure mag......code article

huangyhg

structure mag......code article
"experienced engineers (5 to 40+ years) produced design wind forces that varied from 3.9 kips to 24.2 kips with a standard deviation of 42% in the results."
this agrees with what i have been figuring for some time now based on seeing other engineers work. i know i have unintentially missed things as well. all the west coast engineers seem to be currently having a hard time adjusting to asce wind, but seismic is even worse to me-especially getting all the special detailing right.
"why have we as practicing engineers allowed the codes to become so complex? i propose the single biggest answer is apathy"
i agree with this one too, and apathy seems to fit our fees as well. but i am also guilty on the code part because i have never been to a committee meeting on anything and argued for simplification. a good one would be, why now does it have to take 4 hours to design a couple of anchor bolts by hand?
great post!
it seems every year specs get thicker and thicker or more and more complex. aashto is the worst. i think the latest volume may excced the allowable floor loading for my office. aisc has not gotten that much thicker, but has required more sophisticated analysis. i think that software companies and acdemics have convinced code writers to require very sophisticated models but the computational means are there. although this may sound good in theory - if we can make more exact models, why not?, we now have codes that require the use of programs that we can not touch by hand. more and more engineers absolutely need a computer to solve problems. ask for slope deeflection or moment distribution by hand and they look at you blankly.
now even the wind load codes are so complex, they aparently can not be solved by hand. there are a lot of structures designed by hand to simple understandable models that have stood the test of time. not that every model needs to be solved by hand, but such models shoud not be eliminated as they reinforce our understanding of the actual load and response. i saw the article - it is really good. the entire magizine is quite good.
ditto about aashto
i took some measurements:
1953 aashto 6th edition   6"x9"x 3/4"    40.5 in^3
1973 aashto 11th edition  6"x9"x 1 1/8"  60.75 in^3
1996 aashto 16th edition  8 1/2"x11"x2 1/2"  233.75 in^3
2004 aashto lrfd 3rd edition 8 1/2" x 11" x 3 3/4" + 2 1/2 " of interim specs  584.38 in^3
perhaps the paper companies are in cahoots with the software writers and academics.
the author is right.  i see lots of griping about the complexity of the codes, but how many have you have ever plotted out the curves from the fancy equations, come up with a simpler approximation, and proposed a change to the code?
hg
the complexity of the code is outrageous and the code cycle is even worse.  
we need to rise up, in arms if necessary!
it is just impossible to do things by hand and be profitable.  i am a relatively young engineer, 35.  i prefer to do things by hand when i can just to understand what i am doing.  but, to turn a profit, it is really difficult these days to do that.  i barely re  
great.  draft a proposal for specific changes and submit it to the relevant code committee.
i do this frequently.  i get my way a lot of the time.
code writing is a "do-ocracy".  if you're willing to do it, you stand a chance of getting what you want.  otherwise, put up with it.  bitching about it in a forum, saying, "oh me, oh my, surely something must be done!  those eevul perfessers!  those scurvy knaves at the dot!" accomplishes nothing.
hg
it is not the computer's fault for what is going on.  the computer is an awesome tool that makes possible the great things we can accomplish "for $1 that any idiot can do for $2".  maybe we can start doing things for $0.75 instead of $1.
the fault lies with lazy, ignorant, arrogant, naive young people and complainy, lazy, arrogant old people.  young engineers should have the brass to learn something for themselves and older engineers should have the courtesy and foresight to point them in the right direction.  otherwise all you have is young pups listening to the alzheimer's unit complain about new-fangled techonology and talk about going uphill both ways to school.  that's not productive at all.  
there seems to be a lot of that lately among the older generation in the trade publications.  too many gray and blue hairs crying about the younger generation and not enough turning that criticism inward.
note that this is not every young person, and not every older person.  that seems to get left out frequently.  let's not get into stereotypes if possible.  i exaggrerated to make a point only.  
how many here plan to participate in the trial design problem mentioned in the article?
i will do it.
hgtx,
i don't have the time to run committees.  i can complain anytime i like to whomever i like. everytime i go to a seminar that is hosted by a committee   
interestingly in the same edition of structure magazine on page 45 is an article titled "code changes affecting post-installed concrete anchor design".  the article espouses how much better aci appendix d is than previous design methods because it rewards the engineer by "increasing the efficiency of the system" and provides "additional transparency".  
these two articles are pretty much in direct opposition.  aci appendix d is one of the most complex codes i've seen.  i thought it was pretty funny that both articles show up in the same edition.
i am in full agreement that the profession (journals, pdh requirements, etc) are being driven more by academia and those who see pots at the end of the tunnel (look at the asce geotechnical journal for example) and in any issue i would bet (i've counted several issues) where the professors (or their grad students who happen to have graduated and just took up a job in industry) comprise more than 90% of the authors.  i have taken the time to point out a few edit errors to aashto - and what did i get in return?  an under the belly blow in return.  years ago i had asked how i can report the cylinder break to the nearest 79 kpa.  mmmmmm