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

RE: IBC Question

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
You do make a good point that the commentary is not part of the legal
document, although I do think that the Commentary could be sited as a
clear indication of the code committee's "intent".  I was strongly
opposed to removal of the Alternate Design Method from ACI 318, and in
my opinion, all material codes should maintain some basic ASD
provisions, even if relatively conservative.  We should maintain the
ability to analyze service load stresses and to have a feel for the
acceptability of the calculated stresses.  

As an ACI 350 committee member, I am also a strong proponent of keeping
the Alternate Design Method in that code, which is still part of the
next proposed version (due to be published for public comments soon).  

William C. Sherman, PE 
(Bill Sherman) 
CDM, Denver, CO
Phone: 303-298-1311
Fax: 303-293-8236
email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:17 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)
> Subject: RE: IBC Question
> Ah, but from a technical point of view, section R1.1 is _NOT_ 
> part of ACI
> 318 (i.e. the "code").  The commentary is NOT a "legal" 
> otherwords, it is not a mandatory language 
> document and has no standing from the point of view of being 
> "code enforceable".  Now, it could be construed as a 
> "standard of care" document.
> The point is that from a purely code/"legal" point of view 
> that bit in the commentary means nothing.
> Now, if you have a local juridiction that has adopted ACI 
> 350-01 as a referenced code for environmental structures 
> (i.e. tanks, etc), then I believe WSD would still be 
> permitted "per code" as I believe ACI 350 still has WSD (aka 
> the "Alternate Desgin Method").  It is also possible that 
> some of the ACI nuclear oriented codes might still have WSD in them.
> Thus, that is the reason why I stated "technically, WSD no 
> longer exists for concrete".  You forgot my little qualifier 
> (i.e. the "technically").
> You are correct, however, that the commentary does imply that 
> WSD "may"
> be used, but as I am not a lawyer (though I have stayed in 
> Holiday Inn Express hotels in the past) I cannot say how much 
> legal validity such a commentary statement has.
> Regards,
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Sherman, William wrote:
> > It is not completely accurate to say that "WSD no longer exists for 
> > concrete" or that a 1/3 increase no longer applies to concrete.
> > Although the Alternate Design Method is no longer published 
> in the ACI
> > 318 Appendices, Section R1.1 of ACI 318-05 includes the 
> statement "The 
> > Alternate Design Method of the 1999 code may be used in place of 
> > applicable sections of this code."  And section A.2.2 of the 1999 
> > Appendix A for the Alternate Design Method permits a 0.75 reduction 
> > factor when considering wind or earthquake forces. Thus, WSD with a 
> > 1/3 allowable stress increase is still permitted - it is 
> just hidden well.
> >
> >
> > William C. Sherman, PE
> > (Bill Sherman)
> > CDM, Denver, CO
> > Phone: 303-298-1311
> > Fax: 303-293-8236
> > email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********