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,

It is only in the case of the 1997 UBC (and previous UBC codes) that you
must "purchase" a commentary for the concrete provisions.  In the case of
the BOCA code, the SBC, the IBC code and the NFPA code, you have already
gotten the concrete commentary when you bought ACI 318, which is part of
those codes by adoption by reference.  So, I have never had to pay
anything extra to get the concrete commentary as I have never really been
under the UBC system.  Another example of "be careful what you ask for".
<grin>

As to you last comment: 'In short - one is either "all inclusive" or
"partially inclusive". This is really the only issues I was "debating"
here.'...  I am not sure what you mean.

In reality, this is little difference between how the UBC did things
versus how the IBC does things.  The only functional difference is that
the UBC reprinted the portions of ACI 318 that it included as part of the
UBC, while the IBC does not reprint the portions of ACI 318 that are
included as part of the IBC but rather "tells" which parts are included,
which parts are included with minor changes, which parts are excluded, and
which things are added that are not part of ACI 318.  The result is the
same...both use vitually all of the ACI 318 provisions for the concrete
provisions of the model building code...it just becomes a matter of do you
have to have just the model building code open (i.e. UBC way) or both the
model building code and the ACI 318 code open (i.e. IBC way).

The point is that the 2000 IBC (and same for the 2003 IBC) adopts as part
of itself the ENTIRE ACI 318-02 document (note the commentary is
techincally a seperate document even though it is printed under the same
cover as ACI 318-02).  It then takes about 3 pages to add in some sections
and modify a few sections of ACI 318.  What this means is that the LAW
(where the IBC is adopted) concrete design and construction _IS_ ACI 318
(at least for "structural concrete").  It is just as "all
inclusive" as the UBC.

FWIW, there is no confusion as to which part of ACI 318 is part of the
IBC.  It _ALL_ is.  And section 1908 of the 2000 IBC VERY clearly shows
when things are added to the ACI 318 provisions and where specific
provisions in the ACI 318 are modified (only a handful of cases).  And I
will point out that section 1908 of the 2000 IBC does NOT delete or
exclude any section of ACI 318.  So, it is abundantly clear the _ALL_ of
ACI 318-02 is part of the IBC, with just a handful of modfications and
additions.  So, to me, the UBC is not any more clearer in this regard than
the IBC.  And in fact, since the 1997 UBC does not include Chapter 1 of
ACI 318-95 when it reprinted the concrete provisions (with some
modifications and additions and possibilty some deletions), I would say
that the UBC is LESS clear that the IBC in one regard...the provisions of
ACI 318-95 that were reprinted are not intended for use with slabs on
grade (and some other things like deep foundations or slabs on metal
decks), but the 1997 UBC is silent on this.  So, it is not clear if the
1997 UBC intents these provisions to apply in such situations or not.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI



On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Dennis S. Wish, PE wrote:

> Steve,
> I would agree with you on this. However, it would be nice if the authors
> of the code could be specific or at least lead the community without
> having to rely upon the purchase of a commentary to act like a
> "decoder". In this case, "code" does not require encryption - it should
> be clear and concise defining the intent and the limits of these two
> section.
> I am only picking on section 1921 and 1922 of the CBC and UBC because it
> has led to a discussion that we should not be having.
>
> As a note to Scott: I believe "dickering" on the rhetoric, we agree with
> one another more so than have our differences. I can only be staunch (or
> stubborn) on the definition of Code - an adopted and legal document. If,
> as I think you agree, the code specifically includes all provisions of
> ACI-318 then you can say that ACI-318 is legally bound into the code and
> is therefore the law. However, if it is discriminatory, then what is
> published in the CBC/UBC/IBC etc. takes precedence as this was what was
> adopted into law by each specific state and further revisions by each
> municipality.
>
> When methodology is combined in the code as it was prior to 1994
> (specific as I understand it to the UBC and not the SBC) there was less
> confusion as that section of ACI-318 was not simply referenced, but
> embedded into the code. While it does not specifically stop debate over
> the intent of the code, it does become law (however ambiguous) by the
> nature of the rhetoric embedded rather than referenced within the
> adopted documents.
>
> In short - one is either "all inclusive" or "partially inclusive". This
> is really the only issues I was "debating" here.
>
> --
>
> *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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********