ACI 318-14 vs. 318-11 3

[medeek]

I've been doing a lot more work with concrete recently and just realized that my ACI 318-11 is no longer on the cutting edge. I've done some reading on the ACI website about the new improved organization of the 318-14 but I am wondering what others experience has been. Is it worth the $250 to update or am I just as well off with my trusty 318-11. I guess my real question is whether the improvements are enough to justify the cost?

A confused student is a good student.

 

[RobertHale]

There was this thread back when ACI had it out for public discussion. I have not seen the final published document, but judging from the ACI public comment summary I think the document hasn't changed much from the draft.

 

[JedClampett]

medeek, I'm not sure you're going to have a choice. When a municipality adopts the next IBC (2015?), it will adopt by reference ACI 318-14. And even though the changes tend to be small from edition to edition, you don't want to be caught on the wrong side of even those small changes.
What I've heard is that the code has been reorganized to a design by element, as opposed to design by load condition. Instead of a chapter on shear and bending, the chapters address beams and columns. I'm sure it's the same recipes, just in different order.

 

[JAE]

I've also heard that 318-14 won't be a huge change (content-wise) from 11.
The ACI seminar I was at they said that because of the huge format change they didn't want to also have a huge content change on this one but would wait until the next spec (318-17?)



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[woodman88]

So they had little to change but still wanted money and did a format change to get it. Just like the ASCE 7-10 was for.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[medeek]

I'm just wondering if anyone has actually purchased the new version yet and put it through its paces. Was it easier to work with, easier to interpret, less flipping between sections?

I really don't want to shell out $250 unless it is going to significantly improve my productivity or give me additional information that I might be currently missing.

With the ASCE 7-10 there were enough significant changes in my opinion that necessitated the upgrade.


A confused student is a good student.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

It will be more difficult to use for those of us who are truly well versed in the old code. The re-organization will make it tricky for us to find things at first.

My guess is that, long term, the format change will make it significantly easier to use and learn. But, it will take me a while to get used to where all the new sections are.

 

[JedClampett]

medeek, I would wait for a while. ACI usually runs training seminars and as part of the cost, you get a copy of the code. That way you get some CEU's, they explain their motives, changes and other tidbits and you get the code as a bonus. You also get to meet your peers, for better or worse. If you're not self employed, maybe your employer will pick up the tab.

 

[BigH]

That's a big "maybe" JC . . .

 

[JedClampett]

No sooner did I mention than the ACI noticed that they needed a little extra cash. Kidding, kidding.
They're taking the seminar on the road, coast to coast. There's likely to be one near you. See ACI SeLinkminar.
Depending on whether or not you're an ACI member, the cost is either $550 or $697. And you get the code.

 

[Ingenuity]

They're taking the seminar on the road, coast to coast. There's likely to be one near you

but no Hawaii...I guess it must be tough to get volunteer speakers to make the trip. Sigh!

 

[JedClampett]

You could come to Phoenix in March. Catch a spring training game.
And I did say coast to coast.

 

[JedClampett]

I went to the ACI 318-14 Seminar yesterday. It was pretty good. Mostly organization changes, but enough content changes to keep your interest. A lot of strut and tie. Very few examples, but it was hard to fit a lot of extra instruction in.

 

[medeek]

Is it easier to navigate compared with 318-11? If it is I might consider the upgrade.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE

http://www.medeek.com

 

[TXStructural]

318-14 was intended to make it easier for new designers to figure out what was required. The main goal of reorganization was to improve the likelihood that a design would be complete and not accidentally miss a step or check.

The committee did not accept new business except for a very few items (such as the methods for determining yield strength of reinforcement), BUT they did find problems with the old code where things were missing or misplaced or outdated. As they worked through the reorg, they found provisions which had to be changed to either keep the intent or to assure safe design - not so much a change in requirements as a clarification of what was always required. Only a handful of true content changes were made.

318-14 is now organized according to what member is being designed rather than by flexure, shear, etc. This allows one to open the Beam chapter and design a beam. It also allows the use of "beam specific" shear and flexure provisions which might differ from those of slabs, walls, or columns. It may allow better, easier design as the code evolves. Many of us hope it will eventually simplify things rather than complicate them even more.

 

[JedClampett]

medeek, to be clear, when the 2015 IBC is adopted in your jusrisdiction, you're required to use ACI 318-14. It's not an option for convenience. If you use or cite the provsions of the old code, you're in violation of the Building Code.
Further, the instructor said that we should start using ACI 318-14 immediately. He said that as it is "state of the art" there's no problem using it whether adopted or not. I'm not sure I agree with that, but that's what he said.