ACI 318-08 coming 4

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.

 

[Lion06]

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.

 

[csd72]

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

 

[WillisV]

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.

 

[haynewp]

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.

 

[DarthSoilsGuy]

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.

 

[Lion06]

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.

 

[msquared48]

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

 

[lkjh345]

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

 

[msquared48]

Me two.

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

 

[cessna98j]

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.

 

[WillisV]

All the changes were on public review for months...you can see them at:

http://www.aci-int.org/Technical/FlashHelp/Proposed_Changes_to_318-05.htm

 

[DaveAtkins]

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

 

[rday]

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.

 

[JAE]

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".

 

[csd72]

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!

 

[UcfSE]

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

 

[msquared48]

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

 

[HgTX]

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

 

[JAE]

I pick the latter.