ACI 318-08 coming
ACI 318-08 coming
(OP)
Publicized by ACI, I see that the new 318-08 is coming out end of January 2008. I thought that I heard that the rythym of new codes and standards (currently at 3 years) was going to change to 5 years.
As a structural engineer, I'm getting very tired of getting bombarded with new codes and standards at a 3 year cycle. This is ridiculous. (rant over).
The new 318 advertisement lists the following changes:
Ch 1. - Earthquake design now classified based on Seismic Design Category (SDC)
Ch 4. - Some changes to tables based on the new categories and some changes to durability issues.
Ch 7 - anchorage and splice changes to integrity reinf.
Ch 10 - Section 10.10 revised (again!)
Ch 11 - min. shear req'mts in beams changed to allow for fiber reinforced concrete.
Ch 13 - Changes to provide an alternative corner reinf. scheme in two-way flat slabs.
Ch 20 - Test load intensity revised.
A whole new code for these changes above. Seems like overkill and a constant attempt to add to revenue.
But it's the life we've chosen I guess.
As a structural engineer, I'm getting very tired of getting bombarded with new codes and standards at a 3 year cycle. This is ridiculous. (rant over).
The new 318 advertisement lists the following changes:
Ch 1. - Earthquake design now classified based on Seismic Design Category (SDC)
Ch 4. - Some changes to tables based on the new categories and some changes to durability issues.
Ch 7 - anchorage and splice changes to integrity reinf.
Ch 10 - Section 10.10 revised (again!)
Ch 11 - min. shear req'mts in beams changed to allow for fiber reinforced concrete.
Ch 13 - Changes to provide an alternative corner reinf. scheme in two-way flat slabs.
Ch 20 - Test load intensity revised.
A whole new code for these changes above. Seems like overkill and a constant attempt to add to revenue.
But it's the life we've chosen I guess.






RE: ACI 318-08 coming
I second your rant and I've only been working for 1.5 years. It does seem crazy that IBC 2006 is just now being adopted by most jurisdictions (which references ACI 318-05) and ACI 318-08 is coming out.
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
1. It is impossible to become 100% fluid and proficient at each code over a 3 year cycle, meaning that our industry is not as efficient as it could be.
2. There is a learning curve to getting used to a new code, when you are learning you are more likely to make mistakes than if you are experienced at using it.
In other countries, interum addendums are issued for items that are of a life safety nature. You often can subscribe to a website and be notified of any of these for a choice of codes. To me this makes more sense.
csd
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
friging racket. reminds me of the Windows98 release. just because you started off issuing updates every 1/3/5 years is no excuse to pump them out for the h### of it. besides, i may be a dark horse here, but does anybody in our business (in non-megafirms) keep a current code stock in their library? i bet the majority of us are a couple of issues back on the majority of it.
i've got all these old books lying around that could be a threat to public safety, i guess. haven't got a recall notice from the code people on any of them yet.
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
I know one guy in our office using ACI 318-99 (maybe it is the edition before that even). I occasionally ask him a question on concrete using my code (05) and he always goes back to his oler one.
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
Relating to your original comment on Chapter 7, what's "integrity reinforcing"? Did you mean "integrate", as to combine the effects of reinforcing for anchorage and splices?
Mike McCann
McCann Engineering
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
Mike McCann
McCann Engineering
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
htt
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
For masonry, I use ACI 530-88/ASCE 5-88.
For steel, I use my good old green steel manual.
For wood, I use the 1997 NDS.
In summary, I guess I am out of date on everything! Maybe I should start buying some of these new Codes.
But they have become so expensive!
DaveAtkins
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
ACI 318-02 - have to get the 05 for a Federal job
NDS 97
AISC silver LRFD (95?)
ACI 530-99 I believe
ASCE 7-02
I am also of the mind that the 3 year cycle for code revisions is rediculous. Ditto on the prices.
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
Integrity reinforcing is referring to section 7.13 "Requirements for Structural Integrity" where top and bottom bars of beams, joists and slabs have some portion of the steel extended into adjacent supports to help resist dis-proportional collapse in the case of one span being "broken".
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
We had a situation with reinforced CMU where if you designed to the new code it didnt comply to the old one, and if you designed to the old one it didnt comply with the new one!
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
Interesting that they finally have assigned a name to what is good engineering practice. Thanks.
csd72:
To me, any new code is always the standard of measure, even with all the errata. Why would you ever be concerned over the any code not being compliant with the associated old code? I would expect that to happen. Am I missing something here?
Mike McCann
McCann Engineering
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
For ex. - Concrete Design Code - 1994 the new conc code was published, but wasn't in effect until 1995 National Building Code referenced it and even then, it wasn't in effect until the Provincial codes adopted it with local revisions.
New Concrete Design Code was published in late 2004, and new National Building Code came out in 2005. Of course it seems much more complicated than the last code, perhaps we can get more accurate designs now, but the complicated series of eqns seems to lose any intuitive feeling one may have in applying them.
I'd say the biggest problem with codes is the lack of clarity with which they are written. I'm often puzzled as I read them, thinking "Do they mean this? I think they do, but they may also mean that...." The manner in which they are written can be so confusing, and with all the circular cross references you start to lose the intent of the code altogether.
In my opinion more focus should be put on clarity of the codes to prevent the real possibility of a failure occuring, due to a misinterpretation of a poorly worded code clause, chalk full of complex eqns, that only a PHD could understand (sorry run-on sentence, I guess I shouldn't be the one writing the codes!).
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
Perhaps there would be more clarity in the codes if the writers included a flow chart to lead the designer through the code provisons in some orderly way that coincides with the design process?
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: "To me, any new code is always the standard of measure, even with all the errata. Why would you ever be concerned over the any code not being compliant with the associated old code? I would expect that to happen. Am I missing something here?"
What you say makes sense from an engineering point of view, unfortunately we live in a litigious society and any deviation from the designated code can be used in court against you.
I will usually use the latest code if it is more conservative than the old one.
csd
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
Don Phillips
http://worthingtonengineering.com
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
A well functioning code committee should be made up of academics, who do the research and turn it into code eqns, designers, who use the code on a daily basis and suppliers, who ensure the code isn't favoring one supplier or system over another.
I do get overwhelmed at how much seems to change and with trying to keep up with the changes to the code. Let's just remember that writing up a new code isn't done over a weekend either. It takes a tremendous amount of work (which is usually "volunteer" work, over and above our day jobs, whether you are a professor, or an industry person) to review the code and put forward revisions.
If there are concerns with specific the code, (lack of clarity, too frequent with changes, an unconservative clause) then it is up to us to voice those concerns and then they can get addressed by the code committee.
Long story even longer....JAE - I think you are right, ACI changes way too often - I'd say between 5-10 years is adequate.
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
Don Phillips
http://worthingtonengineering.com
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
I am disgusted by this ever changing code cycle. Barely does the shrink wrap come off of something before it is already out of date.
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
I disagree that the Codes tend to be behind the state of the art in design and construction. Perhaps you are correct with respect to a few things, such as structural integrity reinforcing, or new understandings of steel design in seismic areas, but for the most part, design and construction has changed slowly over the last 100 years, hasn't it? I think a 10 year Code cycle would be OK, perhaps with addenda as required to cover really important changes.
DaveAtkins
RE: ACI 318-08 coming
Don Phillips
http://worthingtonengineering.com