Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: ACI349 vs. ACI318

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Georgi,

ACI 349 is based off of ACI 318.  The primary difference is that ACI 349
is usually based off of an older (usually two cycles behind) version of
ACI 318.  Thus, the current ACI 349-97 is based off of ACI 318-89 (Revised
1992).  So, my first advice is to make sure that you compare the "correct"
version of ACI 318 to the version of ACI 349 that you are using.

Now, there are other differences besides the "time lag" effect.  Committee
349 does make modifications/changes from ACI 318 that are applicable to
the nuclear industry.  You can note these changes by the "sidebar" that is
next to the provisions in question.  If there is no sidebar (a vertical
line...looks like the revision bars that are used in other documents like
ACI 318 or model building codes such as the BOCA or UBC), then the
provisions should be identical to the ACI 318-89 (Revised 1992)
provisions, assuming that you are looking at ACI 349-97.  If there is a
sidebar, then the provision will be different than that in the
corresponding ACI 318 document.

This is all explained in a note in the begining of the ACI 349 document.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Georgi Stoyanov wrote:

>     Is there someone familiar with code requirements for nuclear RC structures - ACI 349 and specifically a comparison between ACI 318 and ACI 349?
>      I'm trying to figure out what are the major differences and how can results from design software for ACI 318 be modified to conform to ACI349. Per my opinion the major difference are the load combinations, whereas design is generally the same (there are diferences as torsion restrictions at Vc determination, simplified procedure for calculation of magnified moments, if P-delta analysis is not performed; ACI349 has an extra requirements for steel embeds in concrete and so on). I'll be glad to hear from someone who is also intrested in this problem and to discuss it with him.
>
> Regards
> G.Stoyanov
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********