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.

 

[haynewp]

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

 

[jheidt2543]

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!

 

[AlmostPE]

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

 

[WpgKarl]

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!).

 

[jheidt2543]

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?

 

[swivel63]

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.

 

[csd72]

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

 

[Bagman2524]

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.

 

[DonPhillips]

I have found most of the "code writers" come from industry.


Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[sdz]

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.

 

[WpgKarl]

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.

 

[JAE]

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.

 

[DonPhillips]

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

 

[minorchord2000]

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.

 

[DaveAtkins]

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

 

[DonPhillips]

Well, addenda is a code change, which gives us the 3 year cycle.

Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com