×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

ACI 318-08 coming
4

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.

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

JAE-
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

I disagree with it for two distinct reasons:

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

ASCE 7 and AISC have moved to 5 yr cycles - ASCE 7-10 and 2010 AISC Specification will be next editions.  ACI is considering moving to this cycle as well but for now is sticking with their traditional, minor update at 3 yrs and major update at 6 yrs model.  IBC is going to maintain its 3 yr cycle as far as I know, so they will only update references every 2 cycles or so.  

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

It's like we are still trying to figure out how to correctly do all the checks and use all the right factors from the version from 3 years ago and now we have to see what all has changed from what we were still trying to figure out.

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

i say 10 years, and on the decade, for them all (ASTM, AWS, ACI, ICBO, NFPA, UL, etc..) with addendums only for new technologies that get incorporated into the code at next 10 year cycle.  i swear it seems like it would take federal legislation to pull that off.  when i took my AWS-CWI exam in 2005, about 10% of the questions were linked to new footnotes in the D1.1 section of the 2004 book against the 2001. the 2004 book was far from 10% thicker than the 2001 book.

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 have up to date codes, but only because I just started working.  
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

JAE:

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

Geez, 318-98 ain't too bad. I know an engineer still using the red AISC (8th edition) manual.

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

Me two.

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

Anyone know if they've done anything with regards to anchorage in appendix D?  I was at a seismic design seminar last month where a field engineer from Hilti informed us that the next ACI code will take into account reinforcing steel for anchorage to concrete - as opposed to only plain concrete anchorage as it does now.  That would at least help us not have to get so creative everytime we design our anchorage since we typically deal with very large column uplift and deep anchorages.

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

For concrete, the newest Code I own is ACI 318-95, but I know about the new load factors and reduction factors, so I use them.  I also know about the new crack control method (no "z" anymore).  But I still use the development lengths from the 95 Code--maybe they are unconservative--I don't know.

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

Sounds like I am using pretty new codes on average.

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

(OP)
msquared48 (Mike):

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

The masonry code is the crazy one.

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

I stick with whatever code is referenced by the building code.

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

JAE:

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

You can complain about the updates being too frequent, or you can complain about how long it takes for changes to appear.  Take your pick.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies:  FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

(OP)
I pick the latter.

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

Me too, the changes are always worse so the longer it takes the better and the less money spent in between.

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

I think another reason for the multitude of code revisions, besides the money making effect for the issuing associations, is the increasing number of code consultants and professional seminar givers making a living teaching us how to use them!

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

I think they should just make the code very conservative and call it good!  No more revisions!

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

Just to add to the discussion, here in Canada (your welcome for the snow by the way!), we work on a 10 year code cycle.  Typically the materials codes change just before the National Building Code, and that even seems too often sometimes.

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

WpgKarl makes a good point; "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."

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

funny thing is that some engineers will swear up and down that the design will change between codes and that having the "latest" makes you somehow a better engineer.

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

Msquared48,

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

I wonder how many of the code writers are doing real world engineering.  Probably not many because they would realize with all of the different codes out there to be constantly changing them (usually becoming more complicated), keeping up with them is a very difficult task, especially when you're trying to get work done.  

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

Industry=suppliers and other vested interests; because their employer will pay their wages while they sit on a code committee. I think actual code users are under-represented for that reason.

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

sdz - I am from a precast supplier and I "sit" on a concrete design code committee.  I design precast everyday, using the code and I feel I provide a voice from one of the users of the code, to help balance off those who don't use it everyday.

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

(OP)
Yes, unless there's something in the code that would develop into a collapse, why the rush for new codes other than revenue?  I agree with the above sentiments that the shotgun blast of new codes coming at the average engineer might begin to develop confusion and mistakes.

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

The current 3 year cycle that most of the codes follow seem to be driven, again, by industry, who cannot wait 5 to 10 years.  Additionally, the codes tend to be behind the state of the art of design and construction so the 3 year cycle seems to be the compromise.

Don Phillips
http://worthingtonengineering.com

RE: ACI 318-08 coming

I think it boils down to their revenue stream.  A new code every 10 years will cut their revenue stream way down.  When new codes emerge we are bound to purchase them at their inflated prices.  This is simply a survival tactic of self perpetuation for ACI.  They are the biggest offenders.  I have complained bitterly to them, but to no avail.

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

DonPhillips,

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

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources