Diagonal tension capacity for out-of-plane bending of reinforced masonry walls can be assessed using ACI strength design procedures. Direct. Revisions made to ACI since then will be assembled The main committee Letter Ballot on the proposed revision of did. Prior to , flexural crack control requirements in ACI were based on the so- called z-factor method developed be Gergely and Lutz [8]. Their work was based .

Author: Dousho Kizragore
Country: Nigeria
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 13 January 2012
Pages: 325
PDF File Size: 19.26 Mb
ePub File Size: 7.34 Mb
ISBN: 987-4-35299-652-7
Downloads: 46749
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Nekus

Since he does not want to learn the methods described in newer codes, I will have to take the older code that he has been working from for the past 40 years and show him how it has been miss-interpreted. If there is a problem 10 years from now, is he going to come out of retirement and defend your design? The only point I would add, is that you want to protect the company as much as you would like to protect your license.

Basically walls and slabs loaded like beams were sized for an allowable shear stress in the concrete of 2. Emphasize the word “we This is a free-flow forum. However, I feel that I cannot place my stamp on something that’s designed under these methods.

Tell him to stamp it if he wants it done his way? That’s just one criterion.


There have been a lot of changes, but none that I can think of which would aco doubling of member thickness. I was worried about the situation for nothing. If he doesn’t want to you the most current code you can refuse to stamp it on basis of Engineering Ethics.

If they were underdesigned, there’s a good chance that will never come to light. Secondly, by using older methods you are deviating from the standard of care practiced by other engineers providing the same services in your locale.

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden. I understand my obligations as an engineer, those being the reason we are having this conversation in the first place.

Smile, shrug, “your stamp boss,” got me through a lot of meetings in a former life. The fact that there have not been problems with the structures designed incorrectly doesn’t mean the standard was wrong. It sounds as though your “Senior” engineer could use a bit of professional liability training. As true as that is, that’s stepping on some toes. Before approaching him, it might be a good idea to run the “significant difference” by us. I also agree that plan checks through a city aren’t exactly going to catch mistakes in numbers.

However, I doubt the mistaken use of 2.

New PE Needs Advice – Civil/Environmental engineering other topics – Eng-Tips

My attempt was only to be complete Ron, I understand what you are saying and I will keep that in mind from now on. Resources Digital Transformation may be defined in a number of different ways by analysts or enterprise software vendors. If it does, then there’s hell to pay. This was a great thread guys. Let him know that you still consider him a mentor and that you appreciate the guidance and assistance he has given you.


You have several issues with which to deal. Register now while it’s still free!

There was a problem providing the content you requested

He will immediately pick up on the differences and say I have been way too conservative. Hokie66, The doubling of member thickness is not due to a change in the code, but a misinterpretation of the old working stress code. I see that you are new to the forums.

Ron, I agree, that’s why I will not seal a design that does not meet the minimum standards of the latest 3500-8 being used. Thanks everyone for your comments. If everything I say is going to be scrutinized and I am going to have to spend time defending myself then this is a waste of time. I agree with Beej67, if he wants it his way he stamps it.