> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Geoghegan [mailto:mgeoghegan(--nospam--at)structural-tech.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 7:28 AM
> To: Seaint
> Subject: Subject: ACI 318 -Construction Joint
> regarding construction joints to ACI-318....
> i do not think it is an MANDATORY requirement - you can "engineer" a CJ to
> work at almost any location. sure - there are engineering preferences for
> the locations, but it is common to "engineer" a joint to assist certain
> construction staging/sequencing etc.
The problem that I have with this interpretation isn't engineering, but
I think the original poster was correct: "Shall" means "mandatory."
Unfortunately, although the code is written primarily by engineers, it is
couched in legalese, and is meant to be adopted by statute as part of a
comprehensive building code.
In effect, it becomes the law within the adopting jurisdiction. I'm not
saying that "every time," you're going to be in trouble when you don't
properly follow the "shalls" and "shall nots," but you do leave yourself
open to trouble.
I guess I'm just a bit more leary of this kind of thing now that I have seen
litigation up close and personal. I can't tell someone they "can't" do thus
and such, because I realize, just as you say, that you can engineer your way
through the restrictions inherent in the "shalls" and "shall nots," but I
just bring up the fact that you are working without a net after a manner of
It's a pity that we are thus handcuffed from time to time, but there it is.
William L. Polhemus, Jr., P.E.
Polhemus Engineering Company
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org