How much better that?, than the situation we are in now, where the codes have gotten so complex that the formulas bear little resemblance to common knowledge of the way structures actually act and work, and practicing engineers spend most of their time struggling to understand if that formula or this one applies in this particular cook book recipe, without knowing if they are baking cookies or a pot roast. Of course, we had to be able to justify and defend our designs, that hasn't changed, that's our job. This fell under the phrases 'by other rational engineering methods and, not intended to preclude other ration methods founded on sound engineering principles and judgement,' which are included in most of the basic codes. We did this by following the current technical literature and research activities. For years, we've used new research and thinking when it would benefit out designs. I agree with JAE and Nutte that you should satisfy the current governing code, but you shouldn't need three different editions of all other standards/specs. Now if AISC could just help the AASHTO bridge people get a clue! RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition nutte (Structural) 20 Sep 10 14:39 Otherwise, I really like the new unified spec's. I wish they'd just list only the nominal values in the tables and figures, and without the phi reduction, it would be so much easier to read, would work for both ASD and LRFD, and adaptable to specific instances where different safety factors are applicable, like in construction engineering. It's cluttered and is like reading documents with two languages on the same page.
#Aisc 14th edition code#
My only gripe about the new code is that I wish they wouldn't list both allowable and phi-nominal values. Time to make the switch.ĭesigning with the 9th shouldn't cause any problems-I agree with Jae's comment's, (remember the supplement got rid of the stress increase):ġ) Look at the new lateral buckling equations, the new code is far less conservative here.Ģ) The LRFD "factors" are calibrated so they match the old ASD. RE: can i still use ASD 9th edition delagina (Structural) Perhaps the building codes should adopt wording that acknowledges that specifications change and provide a grace period for implementation of the changes. We have already began updating our programs to meet the changes in the 2010 Spec and 14th Edition Manual. Involvement in this process, review of the research, and the committee discussions that result in improvements or changes, excludes our company from an "ignorance is bliss" defense.
#Aisc 14th edition manual#
We are actively involved in the development of the Specification and Manual for Steel Construction. Good or bad, our company's position is that the most current specification should apply exclusively. If a building code, chooses to disagree with specific changes in a product specification, the exclusions should be specific and provide clear explanations. Luckily there are some good changes that result. But, I believe that the current specification should apply regardless of economy.
I agree that in some cases the current spec is less conservative. In 2005, Chapter K provides information for HSS walls. In 1999, the loading requirements where referred to ASCE 7. From 1993-2005 no errata was published for the 1989 ASD Manual unless the change was considered a safety issue. 1989, 1993, 1999, 2005 And errata published for each specification. The primary issue, is significant changes in the Specification for Structural Steel Buildings.
0 kommentar(er)
