Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: ACI 117

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Mr. Polhemus,

Where are you at in the US?

Arvel

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 7:28 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: ACI 117


Rick Stone wrote:

> -->
>
> Gail is spot-on about several things about ACI 117. In my experience, 
> it is widely unfamiliar to designers; however, my contractor brethren 
> are familiar with it by necessity because we invariably have used it 
> many times to resolve a dispute over satisfaction of contract 
> criteria. It seems that many engineers forget that the instruments of 
> service that they provide (drawings and specifications) become a part 
> of a contract that establishes what a contractor then must do; ACI 117 
> is incorporated by reference by ACI 301, and almost all the projects 
> we bid, design, build, or rescue list ACI 301, and tell us that "all 
> work is to comply" etc etc. I agree with Gail that many engineers have 
> little knowledge as to the content of 117, or if they have at least 
> read it, they do not clearly understand how it is applied. Study the 
> commentary and odds are that some illumination will result, although 
> Gail is again spot on regarding the aspect that it can be very 
> confusing to read. And just wait until the revised specification is 
> issued!!!!
>
I will say this, though: I do utilize ACI 301 in the vein that its own 
instructions advise: I incorporate it by reference and go through the 
checklist to "fill in the blanks" concerning those things that are 
project-specific.

And it makes no difference.

Contractors of my experience uniformly ignore it, and claim ignorance as 
if it's an excuse.

One recent project, I asked to see the concrete test reports (as ACI 301 
stipulates) and was told by the contractor's rep "well, we don't ever do 
that stuff." When I reminded him that it's required by the building 
code, he just shrugged and said "well, you didn't call it out on your 
drawings."

I of course turned his attention to the reference to ACI 301, he 
shrugged and said nothing. He didn't care.

And since no one ever dares to enforce a building code around these 
parts (since it would "drive up costs") nothing further was ever said.

Building code enforcement here is a joke. The localities that adopt 
building codes would be better never having done so rather than make a 
mockery of the law like this.

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