Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: 3000 psi concrete and special inspection

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dennis,

I am not sure we are talking along the same lines.

ACI 318 is not just a "reference" to the IBC code (i.e. refers to it as
"back-up" to what is in the code).  ACI 318 is ADOPTED by reference into
the IBC code.  This means that it is legally part of the IBC code.  So,
when a local jurisdiction/state adopts the IBC code, they automatically
adopt the ACI 318 code to handle concrete design.  The exception is if the
local jurisdiction/state SPECIFICALLY excludes, amends, modifies, etc the
IBC code and/or any of the standards that it adopts by reference.

Thus, for example, the State of Michigan has adopted the 2003 IBC as the
state building code.  To my knowledge, none of the modifications to the
IBC that they did when they adopted the 2003 IBC to be the state building
code (aka "the law of the land") were to the concrete provisions (i.e.
Chapter 19 and thus ACI 318).  So, ACI 318-02 is the law of the land for
concrete design with little or no modification (there are some
modifications to it in chapter 19 of the IBC and there might be some
modifications from the state that I am unaware of)...at least in the state
of Michigan.

If it helps, here is section 1901.2 of the 2000 IBC:

"Structural concrete shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
the requirements of this chapter and ACI 318 as amended in Section 1908 of
this code."

This "invokes" ACI 318 as being a legal part of the IBC code.  In effect,
ACI 318 becomes part of the IBC code by this provision...they just don't
print it in the IBC document.

Now, to go back to Michigan, the other exception is if the structure (and
its concrete) will fall under the "domain" if the Michigan Residential
Code (aka the IRC).  In which case, there will differences from the ACI
318 provisions.

So, maybe we are talking the same thing, maybe not.  I will "dicker" with
your comment of "ACI 318 is only a reference to a legal document which is
the code."  ACI 318 is NOT only a reference...it is legally part of the
IBC code.

Now, in the case of the 1997 UBC, you are correct in that ACI 318-95 is
JUST a reference.  At the beginning of Division II of Chapter 19, the 1997
UBC states the following:

"The contents of this division are patterned after, and in general
conformity with, the provisions of Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-95) and commentary - ACI 318 R-95.  For
additional background information and research data, see the referenced
American Concrete Institute (ACI) publication."

So, for the 1997 UBC, the ACI 318-95 document is NOT part of the code and
is JUST a reference document that gives a basis or background for the
provisions that ARE in the 1997 UBC.  Now, it so happens that ALMOST
ALL of the provisions in the 1997 UBC in Division II of Chapter 19 are
identical to those provisions in the 1995 ACI 318...and they even use a
numbering system for the provisions that allows a direct correlation to
the same provisions in the ACI 318-95 (for example section 1904 in the
1997 UBC is correlates to Chapter 4 in the ACI 318...section 1904.2.1
correlates to section 4.2.1 of the ACI 318).

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Dennis S. Wish, PE wrote:

> Scott Maxwell wrote:
>
> >Dennis,
> >
> >A point of contention...where the state/local jurisdiction has adopted the
> >IBC (or the BOCA or the SBC since they did the same) as the legal code
> >(aka "the law"), then ACI 318 (in whatever "flavor" [aka year]) _IS_ the
> >law.  The IBC code specifically references ACI 318, which technically
> >makes ACI 318 part of the IBC code.  Now, there will be some
> >exceptions/modifications included in the IBC that may modify or exempt
> >some sections of ACI 318.  But, make no mistake...where the IBC is the
> >"law", this makes ACI 318 the "law"...UNLESS the local jurisdiction/state
> >elects to "modify" this portion of the IBC (i.e. pass the adoption of the
> >IBC but the law "deletes" some sections such as the reference to ACI 318).
> >
> >This is also true for other documents like the NDS, the MSJC (masonry
> >code), some of the AISC specs (ASD spec, LRFD spec, Seismic spec), and
> >some other structural standards.
> >
> >This varies some from what you are used to in the UBC as the UBC does tend
> >to reprint alot of stuff directly in it.  The 1997 UBC has direct
> >provisions in the concrete chapter (it so happens that those provisions
> >are largely identical to ACI 318-95...but then that is because that was
> >the basis of the UBC's concrete provision...they just "tweaked" things a
> >little).
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Scott
> >Adrian, MI
> >
> >
> >
> Scott,
> I don't think I negated the legality of ACI or any other organization
> documents that are referenced in the code. The code is the law, ACI 318
> is not unless it is referenced in the IBC. You stated this yourself in
> your e-mail and this is why we actually agree. If the municipality or
> state adopts a code that modifies the provisions in ACI then the IBC
> governs -- right or wrong.
> There are supporting documents that make up a legal document - these are
> simply the instruments of the legal community and in and other
> themselves have no legal significance until they are produced either in
> court or adopted in the form of a code or ordinance starting at the
> state level. The State Legislation did not adopt ACI 318 but they did
> adopt UBC 97 or the 2003 IBC (depending on the state) or they made
> changes as they have in the most current California Building Code.
> I hope you see my point. ACI 318 is only a reference to a legal document
> which is the code.
>
> Dennis
> --
>
> *Dennis S. Wish, PE*
> *California Professional Engineer
> Structural Engineering Consultant
>
> dennis.wish(--nospam--at)verizon.net*
> *
> 760.564.0884 (office - fax)
> *
>
>     */This e-mail is intended to be delivered only to the named
>     addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential and
>     proprietary. If this information is received by anyone other than
>     the named addressee(s), the recipient(s) should immediately notify
>     the sender by e-mail and promptly delete the transmitted material
>     from your computer and server. In no event shall this material be
>     read, used, stored, or retained by anyone other than the named
>     addressee(s) without the express written consent of the sender or
>     the named addressee(s)./*
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********