Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: General Building Code Question

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Just to play devils advocate, you must also consider that the IBC did not
have an opportunity to change the 318-02 provisions.  The IBC does make
changes to 318-99 and there is no guarantee that IBC '03 will accept the
changes made in 318-02.

That said, I have personally used the precast wall panel provisions in
318-02 because they make a lot more sense than the ones in the 2000 IBC.  I
have also adopted the new phi factors and load combinations.

On another note, I have to agree with the other statements about cracking in
PT slabs.  I have only worked on two of them, but I would be very careful
before using the higher values.  Cracking over / around columns is very hard
to predict with all the steel and tendons being placed there.

Jake Watson, P.E.
Salt Lake City, UT

-----Original Message-----
From: Cliff Schwinger [mailto:clifford234(--nospam--at)comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 9:23 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: General Building Code Question



This is a general question but I will ask it by giving a specific
example.

IBC 2000 references ACI 318-99 for concrete design.  Does the reference
to ACI 318-99 mean that engineers are bound to using this specific
edition of ACI 318?  For most aspects of concrete design it does not
make much of a difference as to which edition of ACI 318 is used;
however sometimes there some significant differences between the new and
old editions that can have an impact on member design.

Here is why I am asking:

ACI 318-02 allows flexural tension stresses in post-tensioned flat
plates to be as high as 7.5 x (f'c)**0.5.  Prior to ACI 318-02 the upper
limit on this value was 6 x (f'c)**0.5. Since IBC 2000 specifically
references ACI 318-99, I am assuming that engineers are not permitted to
take advantage of the higher service level tension stress.

Am I correct with this assumption?

Thanks.

Clifford Schwinger P.E.


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********




******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********