-
1
- #1
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
AS3600-2018 Commentary 1
- Thread starter rapt
- Start date
- Status
gusmurr - I just checked the Techstreet site (Standards Australia publishers ) and SAI Global and it hadn't appeared at either yet.
Maybe tomorrow.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
Maybe tomorrow.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
- Thread starter
- #4
I just downloaded from the SAI Global site, using the CIA annual subscription service, but it still isn't listed at Techstreet or the Standards Australia site.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
Settingsun
Structural
Is the intent/interpretation, highlighted by rscassar, something that could be deduced (conclusively) without the commentary? As rapt said, the commentary doesn't change the rule.
Yeah, there are a couple of things which the commentary clarifies. Interpolation of the tables for fire design of walls is another which is written in the commentary and not the code proper. But overall, it seems to be a very comprehensive and well written document and does seem to be a lot more informative than the previous code commentary.
- Thread starter
- #10
It is the most we could do until a Code revision is released.
the Lu <= 5D rule applies for OMRF's and IMRF's in section 14.4 and 14.5, so if mu > 1.
10.7.4.3(b) (iii) says it should comply with 14.5.
So you check in accordance with 14.5 and 14.5 says if it requires the ductility level of an IMRF then the special detailing is required.
If mu = 1 then it is neither so the special detailing is not required.
In future, 10.7.4.3(b) (iii) should be amended to say If mu > 1 then 14.5!
the Lu <= 5D rule applies for OMRF's and IMRF's in section 14.4 and 14.5, so if mu > 1.
10.7.4.3(b) (iii) says it should comply with 14.5.
So you check in accordance with 14.5 and 14.5 says if it requires the ductility level of an IMRF then the special detailing is required.
If mu = 1 then it is neither so the special detailing is not required.
In future, 10.7.4.3(b) (iii) should be amended to say If mu > 1 then 14.5!
Settingsun
Structural
Would it be better to delete from Section 10 and just leave the EQ rules in one place (Section 14)? Then could have something like this handy table from ACI 318 to assist understanding:
- Thread starter
- #12
steveh
Which requires a code revision.
It was put into section 10.7.4.3(b) (iii) to remind designers when they are doing the detailing in section 10 that there are specific more stringent rules in section 14 for buildings requiring seismic detailing, as some designers would look at section 10 and say that all that is required is the section 10 rules as they do not mention section 14! And that is the dilemma of code writers!
Which requires a code revision.
It was put into section 10.7.4.3(b) (iii) to remind designers when they are doing the detailing in section 10 that there are specific more stringent rules in section 14 for buildings requiring seismic detailing, as some designers would look at section 10 and say that all that is required is the section 10 rules as they do not mention section 14! And that is the dilemma of code writers!
Settingsun
Structural
Yeah, I'm thinking ahead to the next revision but also thinking about the principle of not stating things twice (like we are sometimes told to apply to drawings and specifications). So there could just be a cross-reference along the lines of "The requirements of Section 14 are in addition to the requirements of this section." That could go as the very first clause in section 8.3, 10.7 & 11.7 for example.
But you seem to be saying that people are ignoring 2.1.2 already...
But you seem to be saying that people are ignoring 2.1.2 already...
Retrograde
Structural
Doesn't appear to be on Techstreet yet.
- Thread starter
- #15
Steveh,
We try not to state things twice.
And everyone complains that the code does not tell them specifically to do it!
We state something twice and someone else complains.
There is logic to having all design rules in each specific section, so all rules about column ties in section 10.7, including the seismic ones. So the Seismic section would have guiding rules but specifics like ties are in the specific section they belong in.
As that could not be organized for the 2018 version of the code, it was decided in this case to point out that there were also rules for this in the seismic Section. Hopefully in the 202? version of the code it will be moved to 10.7. The minimum wall reinforcement rules should also be moved to section 11.
The same should have been done for SFRC in 2009 but was not and should be done when alternate reinforcement or concrete types are added.
But those are my opinions. Others on the committee seem to have other preferences.
We try not to state things twice.
And everyone complains that the code does not tell them specifically to do it!
We state something twice and someone else complains.
There is logic to having all design rules in each specific section, so all rules about column ties in section 10.7, including the seismic ones. So the Seismic section would have guiding rules but specifics like ties are in the specific section they belong in.
As that could not be organized for the 2018 version of the code, it was decided in this case to point out that there were also rules for this in the seismic Section. Hopefully in the 202? version of the code it will be moved to 10.7. The minimum wall reinforcement rules should also be moved to section 11.
The same should have been done for SFRC in 2009 but was not and should be done when alternate reinforcement or concrete types are added.
But those are my opinions. Others on the committee seem to have other preferences.
My partner has two degrees and a PhD and recently promoted to tenured Professor, I understand, no common sense with these sort of people.....
brizstruct
Structural
Rapt
Congratulations to getting the commentary out.
The discussion is valuable and the references and thoughts in the commentary provide extra information and guidance.
The committee gets a beating every so often.
Thank you for not giving up on your effort with the committee and the rest of us.
A code can't prevent idiocy but at least the data is put in front of everyone
Congratulations to getting the commentary out.
The discussion is valuable and the references and thoughts in the commentary provide extra information and guidance.
The committee gets a beating every so often.
Thank you for not giving up on your effort with the committee and the rest of us.
A code can't prevent idiocy but at least the data is put in front of everyone
- Thread starter
- #18
`Brizstruct,
Thanks, we tried to explain the seismic logic but remember any explanation is really a basic summary of the full explanations. Designers really need to research it in more detail, especially as it has never really been taught in Australian Universities.
But the person who deserves most of the credit is Prof Ian Gilbert who put in an enormous amount of work to review the whole document and revisions and put it all together while stuck![[bigsmile]](/data/assets/smilies/bigsmile.gif "[bigsmile] [bigsmile]")
in France for about 18 months because of Covid travel restrictions.
Before someone else picks it up, there is one area that I know was not upgraded to reference the changes in the 2018 code. The commentary on the clause 8.3 detailing rules (D offset) are out of date and do not correspond with the code rules.
Thanks, we tried to explain the seismic logic but remember any explanation is really a basic summary of the full explanations. Designers really need to research it in more detail, especially as it has never really been taught in Australian Universities.
But the person who deserves most of the credit is Prof Ian Gilbert who put in an enormous amount of work to review the whole document and revisions and put it all together while stuck
in France for about 18 months because of Covid travel restrictions.Before someone else picks it up, there is one area that I know was not upgraded to reference the changes in the 2018 code. The commentary on the clause 8.3 detailing rules (D offset) are out of date and do not correspond with the code rules.
Retrograde
Structural
Is it up on Techstreet yet - I cannot locate it.
- Thread starter
- #20
It is available inn the Standards Store
It is available on Techstreet if you search for AS3600
Not sure why you cannot find either. I simply searched for AS3600 on both sites.
SAI Global is no longer the publisher of AS3600 standards.
It is available on Techstreet if you search for AS3600
Not sure why you cannot find either. I simply searched for AS3600 on both sites.
SAI Global is no longer the publisher of AS3600 standards.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question