It went out to public review before it was printed.
Doesn't look to good does it.
Make up a list of the errors you can spot (I have seen about 4 in a quick look now). Let me know and I will pass it on for inclusion in the next draft.
I'll be honest: I missed the publication of the commentary by about two years. In fairness to myself though, after 4 years I'd given up looking out for it. Are you able to say why it took so long? I'd have thought it would practically be written when the standard itself is released, since any changes have been thoroughly researched and have a sound, explainable basis.
The only error that's not cosmetic is that the requirement of clause 8.1.10.6(c) is ignored. The more than one-quarter of the positive moment reinforcement is shown terminating at a point near the simple support instead of being spread over 2D. I presume the same happening at the continuous support is OK given it's on the compression face at that point but the wording of the standard isn't 100% clear to me.
Otherwise: Positive reinf referred to as negative; negative reinf has a gap but should be continuous across whole span.
Noticed the cosmetic ones. Does not say a lot for the editors and stylists.
Re 8.1.10.6(c), Agreed it does not comply, but I think the justification would be that 25% could have been terminated much earlier, but no sensible engineer would terminate multiple times so the 1st 25% termination point has been extended to be at the same location as the second where a total of 50% has been terminated. This clause is a deemed to comply requirement for the for reinforcement termination based on the real clause 10.4 which also has the 25% termination rule, but it is based on terminating at the point where the reinforcement is no longer required by calculation of strength and development requirements rather than a deemed to comply requirement.
I also do not like end support being shown as a masonry wall and no development of top reinforcement as the deemed to comply case. Most beams would terminate at a column and require proper top reinforcement detailing.
Cannot comment on reasons for the release delay. Most people in the industry know what went on!
I just checked where you submit comments on the Standards Australia website and code committee has now filled in the responses; accepted, rejected etc to any comments you may have submitted. I found they were quite receptive to the comments raised which is great to see.
If you submitted comments, log in to link below, otherwise you wont have any comments to see. I've attached the status of the comments i raised for interest.
