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

RE: IBC Question

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Did you submit a comment to ACI 318-02 when the ADM was proposed to be
removed?  For some reason, I seem to recall your name from somewhere when
I was working for ACI.  Of course, I am getting old and senile, so...

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Sherman, William wrote:

> 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)cdm.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:17 AM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > 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"
> > document...in 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)cdm.com
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********