Sie sind auf Seite 1von 215

Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary

Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
1. ACI Staff 0 0 Please verify that all standards referenced in Chapter 3 are the All standards are being reviewed. Those that have been updated
latest appropriate standards for the 2019 version of 318. will be balloted with the responses to public comments. See
separate file on ballot containing CA195, CB101, CB102, CX002,
CX003, and CX004.

Based on several accepted comments received from Lobo on this


response, several changes were made to CA195:

C496 should be deleted from standards list.


Revise C42-18 to C42-18a – a note clarifies who is the specifier of
the test consistent with ACI 318
Revise C94-17a to C94-18 – clarifies issues on delivery ticket
Revise C595-17 to C595-18 – clarifies evaluation of blended
cements for ASR
Revise C618-17a to C618-19 – updates the basis for classification
of fly ash consistent with ASTM C1178 for ASR
Revise C989-18 to C989—18a – clarifies sampling and reporting
requirements on mill cert

Based on accepted and resolved negative from Wyllie, editorial


change was made to list of ACI references in CX002

strike ACI on line 16 of CX002:

ACI 437.2-13 – Code Requirements for Load Testing of Existing


Concrete Structures and Commentary

Sub H verified that CSA 23.3 2014 (Canadian concrete code) is the
appropriate reference to be cited in ACI 318-19. There are two
instances of CSA 23.3 in the reference list. The second reference
in the list, Page 891, Line 8, is redundant and should be deleted.
The date of the first reference should be 2014

1 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
2. Dale C. Biggers, 0 0 This submission has too many inconsistencies and serious Disagree. No specific code provisions are cited in the comment.
P.E. Chair of the restrictions that should not be accepted without a great deal Assuming this comment is related to the added foundation
PDCA Technical more input from other engineers and contractors. This should provisions; the foundation related Code change proposals
Committee and be tabled for at least a year or two. There is no reason to rush originated in Subcommittee that contained several members
Voting member of this. from ACI 336 and 543, as well as members that are also members
ACI 543 Concrete of ASCE-7 and IBC.
Pile Committee
No change required.
3. Abbas 0 0 I read these draft of ACI Standard and I had no comment, as far Thank you for your review.
as I am concerned and according to my exact specialist.
4. Daniel S. 2 12 Through line 13: Agree, the references in 1.4.7 are too specific and may
Stevenson, P.E. Section 1.4.7 states, “This code does not apply to the design unintentionally exclude pertinent provisions. A reference to Ch.
Representing DFI and installation of concrete piles, drilled piers, and caissons 13 will be added to (c), (18.13.5) will be revised to (18.13), and
Codes and embedded in ground, except as provided in (a) through (d):” 1.4.7 (d) can be deleted, because 1.4.7(c) now includes all of Ch.
Standards Code section 13.4 “Deep Foundations” is not referenced in 13.
Committee entirety in any sections (a) through (d). Will section 13.4 be
applicable if not specifically referenced in any subsection (a) The provision will be revised to:
through (d) of 1.4.7? 1.4.7 This Code does not apply to the design and installation of
concrete piles, drilled piers, and caissons embedded in ground,
except as provided in (a) through (dc):
(a) For portions of deep foundation members in air or water, or
in soil incapable of providing adequate lateral restraint to prevent
buckling throughout their length
(b) For precast concrete piles supporting structures assigned to
Seismic Design Categories A and B (13.4.4)
(c) For deep foundation elements supporting structures assigned
to Seismic Design Categories C, D, E, and F (Ch. 13), (18.13.5)
(d) For cast-in-place deep foundation elements according to
13.4.3.1
5. Thomas Schaeffer 2 18 13.4.4 should be 13.4 because Precast Pile provisions occur in Agree.
13.4.1, 13.4.2, 13.4.3, and 13.4.5
1.4.7 will be revised as shown in Response to #4, page 2, line 12.

2 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
6. Daniel S. 2 18 Proposed code language states precast concrete piles assigned Agree, but should be 13.4
Stevenson, P.E. to SDC A and B shall be designed in accordance with 13.4.4.
Representing DFI This section is “Cast-in-place deep foundations”. We believe 1.4.7 will be revised as shown in Response to #4, page 2, line 12.
Codes and the correct reference should be 13.4.5 “Precast concrete piles”.
Standards
Committee
7. David L. Hartmann 2 18 Believe (13.4.4) should be (13.4.5) Agree, but should be 13.4

1.4.7 will be revised as shown in Response to #4, page 2, line 12.


8. Thomas Schaeffer 2 21 13.4.3.1 should be 13.4 because Cast-in-place Pile provisions This comment is no longer applicable because 1.4.7 (d) is deleted
occur in 13.4.1, 13.4.2, 13.4.3, and 13.4.4 in the revised 1.4.7 as shown in Response to #4, page 2, line 12.
9. Daniel S. 2 21 Proposed code language states that cast-in-place deep This comment is no longer applicable because 1.4.7 (d) is deleted
Stevenson, P.E. foundation elements shall be designed in accordance with in the revised 1.4.7 as shown in Response to #4, page 2, line 12.
Representing DFI 13.4.3.1. This reference appears to be incorrect. Correct
Codes and reference should probably be 13.4.4 “Cast-in-place deep
Standards foundations” or more generally 13.4 “Deep foundations”.
Committee
10. David L. Hartmann 2 21 Believe 13.4.3.1. should be 13.4.1.2 This comment is no longer applicable because 1.4.7 (d) is deleted
Reference to 13.4.3.1 completely bypasses the Allowable axial in the revised 1.4.7 as shown in Response to #4, page 2, line 12.
strength section of 13.4.2.
11. Anthony Galterio 2 26 Please add a reference to the ACI 350 code document in Not accepted.
section 1.4.9 for tanks and reservoirs. Reasoning presented for adding ACI 350 to the code side is not
I come across projects every few years where someone has persuasive.
mistakenly designed a concrete tank to the 318 code and there
is always discussion about the reference not being on the
mandatory code side, just in the commentary.
12. David P. Gustafson 4 17 Should “computer programs” be replaced with “computer Not accepted. Leave as “programs” throughout code.
software”?
The term “computer software program” occurs on Page 111,
Lines 2-3.
13. David P. Gustafson 8 22 Replace “report” with “guide”. Accept. Editorial change.
14. David P. Gustafson 9 24 Should “design” be replaced with “design work”? Accept. Editorial change.
Line 2 speaks of “design work”.

3 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
15. Brian Gerber 9 27 Given that a significant portion of the code refers to the To be considered as New business.
“contractor” as the responsible party, the definition of
“contractor” needs to be added as Section 1.8 and defined in
Chapter 2. Since this party is significant, relying on other
publications for a definition would not be appropriate.
16. David P. Gustafson 10 7 Should “a computer program” be replaced with “computer Not accepted. Leave as “programs” throughout code.
software”?
17. Amin Ghali and 11 0 Through page 26, all lines: To be considered as New business.
Ramez B. Gayed Throughout Chapter 2, replace the words “centroidal axis” by
the word “principal axis”.

The revision is needed to avoid occasional confusion by


beginners. The revision distinguishes between infinite
centroidal axes of which two are principal.
18. Allan Bommer 14 20 The code or commentary should indicate what strain state To be considered as New business.
(ultimate flexure? forces coinciding with ultimate shear?) d
should be calculated for (centroid of longitudinal tension
reinforcement varies per strain state). The resulting shear
capacities can vary significantly (over 50%) depending upon the
strain state used.

It should be noted that the engineer delegates the calculation


of d to software almost all the time (and millions of times per
project), so declaring that human “engineering judgment”
should be used is ignoring the realities of design practice.
19. Robinson 16 17 With the removal of the option to specify fct when determining This is actually page 15, line 17. Accepted. Editorial change.
lambda, is this required? Delete fct from notation list.
20. Reid W. Castrodale 16 17 2.2-Notation This is actually page 15, line 17.
With the removal of the option to specify fct when determining
lambda (with which I don’t agree), is this required? From a Comment accepted. Change response to read:
search on fct, it still appears in Table 25.4.9.3, but probably
should not since it has been removed from a similar table Make the following code changes:
(25.4.2.5). Other than that, there is no other occurrence of fct 1. Delete fct from notation list, page 15, line 17.
showing up in this document. (CA111)
4 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
2. Delete fct from definitions, page 40, line 10.
3. Delete row with fct from Table 25.4.9.3, page 721, line 13.
This change was approved in CA111 but was not implemented.
4. Delete row 19.2.4.3, page 951 (App C). This row is not needed
given fct has been deleted from code.

21. Carson Baker (CPL) 17 43 In a coupled wall system, is it the intent of the committee that Disagree.
lw refers to the entire wall as the total length of both the wall Subcommittee H studied extensively the possibility of using
piers and coupling beams, or to the length of the individual “degree of coupling” in the definition of a coupled wall. It was
wall piers on either side of the coupling beams? If to the wall found, however, that a more satisfactory method was to specify
piers on either side, what aspect ratios of coupling beams are the length-to-height ratio of coupling beams that results in
required to create this behavior? (This could perhaps be optimal energy dissipation, along with appropriate detailing
defined in terms of a “degree of coupling” of the wall system, requirements for the coupling beams. Regarding the definition of
which is the ratio of the moment resisted by the coupling the length lw to be used for a coupled wall, the definition
system to the total overturning moment. Alternatively, any “Structural wall, ductile coupled” points to Section 18.10.9. In
systems qualifying as a ductile coupled wall system per 18.10.9 18.10.9.2 the required aspect ratio Hwcs/lw is stated in terms of
could be considered to have lw defined as the length of the the individual walls on either side of the coupling beams.
wall pier on each side of the coupling beam, and for all other No change to code language, but will insert in the definition list in
systems lw is taken as the entire wall length) Chapter 2,
Ductile coupled structural wall – see structural wall, ductile
coupled
22. Reid W. Castrodale 24 25 Through line 26 See response to comment 312, page 539, line 12, Castrodale
2.2-Notation
I greatly prefer the definition of lambda given in the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications {referred to in following as
AASHTO LRFD], which makes no inference regarding the
potential reduction in material properties. Such statements
should be limited to the commentary, not the code. The
AASHTO LRFD definition is: “concrete density modification
factor,” although this seems to indicate that the density is
being modified.

5 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
This definition, and the one that follows for lambda a, indicate
that lightweight concrete has “reduced mechanical properties,”
which may sometimes be true, but published test date
demonstrate clearly that it is not always the case for tensile
strength which is the real focus of this factor. I am surprised
that ACI would consider publishing such a statement which is
not only untrue but is also damaging to part of the concrete
community.

Lambda has always been targeted for use with properties


that are related to the potential tensile strength reduction
of LWC for equations with a sqrt f’c term. Other
mechanical properties are addressed in other ways, such
as the unit weight, wc, being included in the equation for
Ec.

Possible modifications to the ACI definition:


1. Lambda = modification factor to reflect a
potentially reduced tensile strength for
lightweight concrete.
2. Insert “potentially” prior to “reduced”.

See also comment for p. 45, line 1.


23. David Darwin 26 29 Because o applies only to the development of hooked and Agree.
headed bars, it will be helpful to users of the Code to modify the
definition to “factor used to modify development length of Reason: The proposed change improves the clarity of the
hooked and headed bars based side cover and confinement” definition.

Change the definition of o to “factor used to modify development


length of hooked and headed bars based on side cover and
confinement”

6 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
24. John Cook 27 6 Material other than water, aggregate, should not have a strike Accept. Editorial change.
through
Approved as “material other than water, aggregate,
cementitious materials …
25. James Getaz 27 26 Why does 318 still mention hooked bolts , or at least without Disagree.
the kind of warning in AISC?
AISC provides a recommendation in AISC Design Guide 1 “Base
Plate and Anchor Rod Design” to use headed anchors. Moreover,
the AISC Steel Construction Manual (15th Ed), Chapter 14 notes
hooked anchor rods should only be used for axially loaded
members subject to compression only during erection.

ACI does not want to preclude the use of J- and L- bolts, as they are
still used in the industry. We recognize these types of anchors
have a smaller pullout capacity than headed anchors, however
there is not a safety concern when they are designed in accordance
with ACI 318.

26. Robinson 30 21 The definition of normalweight concrete should have a lower Accepted. Editorial change.
limit that corresponds with the new definition of lightweight Add: “and having a density greater than 135 lb/ft3” at end of
concrete. current definition.
27. Reid W. Castrodale 30 21 2.3-Terminology See response to comment 26, page 30, line 21, Robinson.
With a density range given in the definition for “concrete,
lightweight” [line 15], it seems that the definition for normal
weight concrete should also include at least a lower limit
shown that corresponds to the upper limit for lightweight
concrete.

The AASHTO LRFD includes the lower limit of 135 pcf in its
definition of normal weight concrete.
28. Daniel S. 32 23 The definition for a drilled pier states that it is filled with According to 1.4.7c, the Code only applies to cast-in-place
Stevenson, P.E. reinforcing and concrete. Current code allows for plain concrete deep foundation elements assigned to SDC C, D, E, and
Representing DFI concrete drilled piers for structures assigned to SDC A and B. F; therefore, the term reinforcing in the definition is appropriate.
7 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Codes and Reinforcement is not a necessary component. The proposed
Standards definition does not distinguish a drilled pier from other Cast-in-place concrete deep foundation elements in SDC A and B
Committee common cast-in-place deep foundation types (e.g. auger-cast will be considered for New Business in the next Code cycle.
piles). Consider using definition for drilled shaft in IBC 2018.
For reference: this is the definition from IBC 2018 referenced in
the Comment:
DRILLED SHAFT. A cast-in-place deep foundation element, also
referred to as a caisson, drilled pier or bored pile, constructed by
drilling a hole (with or without permanent casing or drilling fluid)
into oil or rock and filling it with fluid concrete after the drilling
equipment is removed.

No change required.
29. Robinson 33 24 This definition appears to indicate that the only way Accepted. Substantive change.
equilibrium density can be determined is by actual
environmental testing. This is not the intent of ASTM C567. End the definition after “… in accordance with ASTM C567.”
30. Reid W. Castrodale 33 24 2.3-Terminology See response to comment 29, page 33, line 24, Robinson
This definition for “equilibrium density” appears to indicate
that the only way that it can be determined is by actual
environmental testing. This is not the intent of C567, although
the definition given is very close to the definition in ASTM
C567. The sentence should end after “ASTM C567.”

If the entire definition is retained as it stands, the last word


should be changed from “density” to “mass” to agree with
ASTM C567.
31. Adam Lubell 41 26 The definition of “strut, boundary” is poor by referring to Disagree. The commentary removes any ambiguity.
“..boundary of…discontinuity region”. The definition as written
leaves it ambiguous if this classification is also intended to
apply to the boundary between the discontinuity region and
any “b-region”. This could be clarified by adding a B-region to
D-region transition figure as part (b) to Fig R23.2.1.

8 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
32. Mark W 42 17 The definition of tie implies a single bar or wire in a closed Agree
Cunningham configuration.
1. Can’t each (closed) tie be provided using more than An individual tie is not always a loop, and ties can be comprised
one bar? When I made this comment on the 318-14 of multiple pieces, for example crossties through a column or a
update, part of the committee response was: “As new cap tie on a beam. We will change the definition of a tie to be:
business, ACI Committee 318 will consider revision of
this terminology to address that it could be made of Code Change:
multiple pieces (e.g., two overlapping rectangles)”. tie—(a) loop of reinforcing bar or wire enclosing longitudinal
2. The “Cap tie” shown in Fig. R9.7.7.1 (page 228), which reinforcement; a continuously wound transverse bar or wire in
is clearly labeled as a type of “tie”, doesn’t meet the the form of a circle, rectangle, or other polygonal shape without
definition since it’s not closed. reentrant corners enclosing longitudinal reinforcement; see also
stirrup, hoop; (b) tension element in a strut-and-tie model.

Please note as new business, the committee will be revisiting the


definition of a spiral, circular hoop, circular tie, etc. to achieve
more consistency between the Code and common industry
terminology for such reinforcement.

33. Dale C. Biggers, 42 29 Through line 30: Agree with comment. The term “driving” will be replaced with
P.E. Drill shafts and auger-cast piles “ driving a casing “ – this does “installing” because there are several methods to install the
not apply. casing.

The revised Code definition will be:


uncased cast-in-place concrete drilled or augered piles – piles
with or without an enlarged base (bell) that are constructed by
either drilling a hole in the ground, or by driving installing a
temporary casing in the ground and cleaning out the soil, and
subsequently filling the hole with reinforcement and concrete.
34. Daniel S. 42 29 Through line 30: Agree with comment. The term “driving” will be replaced with
Stevenson, P.E. Definition for “uncased cast-in-place drilled or augered piles” “installing” because there are several methods to install the
Representing DFI states that piles may be installed by driving a temporary casing. casing.
Codes and By definition “drilled or augered piles” are not installed by

9 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Standards driving. Consider deleting the phrase “drilled or augered” from The revised Code definition will be:
Committee term defined or deleting reference to driving in the definition. uncased cast-in-place concrete drilled or augered piles – piles
with or without an enlarged base (bell) that are constructed by
either drilling a hole in the ground, or by driving installing a
temporary casing in the ground and cleaning out the soil, and
subsequently filling the hole with reinforcement and concrete.
35. Daniel S. 43 2 Definition for “uncased cast-in-place concrete drilled or According to 1.4.7c, the Code only applies to cast-in-place
Stevenson, P.E. augered piles” states that piles are formed by drilling a hole concrete deep foundation elements assigned to SDC C, D, E, and
Representing DFI and filling with reinforcing and concrete. Current code allows F; therefore, the term reinforcing in the definition is appropriate.
Codes and for plain concrete cast-in-place piles for structures assigned to
Standards SDC A and B. Reinforcing is not a necessary component. The inclusion of cast-in-place concrete deep foundation elements
Committee in SDC A and B will be considered for New Business in the next
Code cycle.

No change required.
36. Reid W. Castrodale 45 1 R2.2-Notation See response to comment 312, page 538, line 12, Castrodale
In 318-14, notations rarely appear on both the code and
commentary side of the page, and when they do, it appears
that the notation in the commentary column is a different
notation. However, with this entry, lambda would be in both
columns.

This statement does begin with the text “In most cases” which
at least gives the impression that lightweight concrete may not
always have reduced mechanical properties, contrary to the
statement in the notation.

To address the second sentence: From a search of the ACI 318-


19 draft, and from the list of topics given in R19.2.4, it appears
that the only instance in ACI 318 where the reduction from
lambda is “not related directly to tensile strength” is the use of
lambda to reduce the compressive resistance of a compression
strut in the strut-and-tie model. If this is so, the last sentence, if

10 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
retained, needs to be singular. However, it appears that CA113
has removed lambda in the equation for the compressive
strength of the strut, realizing that this was an inappropriate
use of lambda. Therefore, it appears that there is no longer a
reason to make the definition more general, and it should be
revised to indicate its intent to account for the potential
reduction in tensile strength of lightweight concrete.
37. Reid W. Castrodale 47 31 Through page 48 line 3: See response to comment 312, page 538, line 12, Castrodale
R2.3-Terminology
This discussion of the term “sand-lightweight concrete”
appears to indicate that the designer knows what the
concrete constituents and mix design will be during the
design phase. This is very rarely the case. This is the
impetus for introducing the new definition of lambda
based on density, because during design, the designer
almost always has no way of knowing the mix design and
the volume fraction of the types of aggregate. Using the
old approach places an unnecessary obstacle in the way of
using lightweight concrete since it raises confusion in the
minds of designers about how to use it.

Who is to state the replacement limits as mentioned on p.


48, lines 2&3? I have seen that it is a requirement of
submittals from the concrete supplier, but that is too late
for design. This is not a reasonable expectation during
design.

Therefore, I think that retaining the old method of


defining lambda based on “type of lightweight concrete”
is a mistake, and that it should be removed from ACI 318.
38. David P. Gustafson 48 30 Replace “computations” with “calculations”. Agree.

11 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Specific code change required:

Change “computations” with “calculations”. Sentence should


read “…for shear strength calculations is given in 18.8.4.3.”

39. David P. Gustafson 49 8 Replace “the Code” with “this Code”. Agree.
40. David P. Gustafson 49 11 Consider replacing “Wind and Earthquake” with “wind and Agree. This is written undercase in other areas of the code (for
earthquake”. example, R6.6.4.6.2). Change made.
41. David P. Gustafson 50 2 Replace “the Code” with “this Code”. Agree.

Page 50, Line 2:

“reinforcement specifications in the this Code. No other


reinforcement qualifies. This definition”

42. David P. Gustafson 51 5 Should “earthquake loadings” be replaced with “earthquake Disagree.
effects”? For example, the term “earthquake effects” appears Subcommittee H believes the term “earthquake loadings” is
on preceding Page 20, Line 41, on Page 38, Line 30, and on clearer in this context.
Page, Line 16.
43. James Getaz 52 0 Figure R2.1(A) Disagree.
Why does 318 still show L-bolts and J-Bolts, or at least without
the kind of warning in AISC? AISC provides a recommendation in AISC Design Guide 1 “Base
Plate and Anchor Rod Design” to use headed anchors. Moreover,
the AISC “Steel Construction Manual (15th Ed),” Chapter 14 notes
hooked anchor rods should only be used for axially loaded
members subject to compression only during erection. Neither of
these are Code provisions, per se.

ACI does not want to preclude the use of J- and L- bolts, as they are
still used in the industry. We recognize these types of anchors
have a smaller pullout capacity than headed anchors, however
there is not a safety concern when they are designed in accordance
with ACI 318.

12 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

44. Catherine French 55 3 This comment is also in relation to pg. 557 Line 24. Agree.
and Conrad ASTM A615/A615M-15a, which is the most recent edition of
Paulson the standard, has no specified minimum requirement for the Reason statement: The ACI 318 Committee requested revisions to
ratio of actual tensile strength to actual yield strength. ACI 318 the ASTM A615/A615M standard appear unlikely to be published
should specify a minimum ratio of actual tensile strength to before ACI 318-19 is published. This leads to a structural safety
actual yield strength of at least 1.1. Additionally, the specified concern, because current ASTM A615 tensile strength
minimum tensile strength requirements for A615 should be requirements result in excessive overstrength of reinforcement,
reduced to match those of A706. Alternatively, if the ASTM leading to non-ductile behavior of members reinforced with
standard is updated to reflect these changes, the updated overstrength reinforcement. The requirement for a minimum T/Y
ASTM standard should be referenced. ratio also helps to mitigate unintended non-ductile behavior and
should be implemented with the required adjustments to the
tensile strength requirements.

Specific Code/Commentary Change Proposal Required: The


proposed Code/Commentary Change Proposal is written in
combined response to address Public Comments 44-46 and affects
Section 20.2.1.3 and R20.2.1.3. The requirements given in
proposed Table 20.2.1.3a specifically address Public Comment 44
and are similar to those given in a resolution approved by
Committee 318 at the Fall 2017 meeting. Remaining requirements
are similar to those presently being balloted by ASTM. Language
and format used is consistent with approach taken in the ASTM
standards.

Due to space limits in this response column, the


Code/Commentary Change Proposal Required to address the
cumulative response to Public Comments 44-46 are given in a
separate cell after comment 46.
45. Catherine French 55 6 This comment is also in relation to pg. 557 line 25. Agree.
and Conrad ASTM A706/A706M-14, which is the most recent edition of the
Paulson standard, does not include Grade 100. If A706 Grade 100 Reason statement: The ACI 318 Committee-requested revisions to
reinforcement is to be allowed by ACI 318, the required the ASTM A706/A706M standard appear unlikely to be published

13 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
mechanical properties must also appear in ACI 318. The ACI before ACI 318-19 is published. Because the current edition of
318 provisions also need to include a requirement to prevent ASTM A706 does not include requirements for Grade 100
premature fracture of bars under cyclic seismic loading, such as reinforcement, it becomes necessary to include such requirements
requiring a minimum r/h value for the ratio of the radius (r) of in ACI 318-19.
the deformation at the transition to the barrel of the
reinforcing bar to the height (h) of the deformation. Additionally, appropriate control of the r/h ratio to deter
Alternatively, if the ASTM standard is updated to reflect these premature fracture of reinforcing bars under cyclic seismic loading
changes, the updated ASTM standard should be referenced. addresses a safety concern.

Specific Code/Commentary Change Proposal Required: The


proposed Code/Commentary Change Proposal is written in
combined response to address Public Comments 44-46 and affects
Section 20.2.1.3 and R20.2.1.3. The proposed requirements given
in 20.2.1.3b (i) and (iii) and proposed Table 20.2.1.3b specifically
address Public Comment 45 and uses the ratio T/Y=1.17 from
Resolution CR015 and bar deformation geometry requirements
from Resolution CR031, which were approved by Committee 318
at the Spring 2017 and Fall 2018 meetings, respectively. Remaining
requirements are similar to those presently being balloted by
ASTM. Language and format used is consistent with approach
taken in the ASTM standards.

Due to space limits in this response column, the


Code/Commentary Change Proposal Required to address the
cumulative response to Public Comments 44-46 are given in a
separate cell after comment 46.
46. Catherine French 55 6 This comment is also in relation to pg. 557 line 25. Agree.
and Conrad ASTM A706/A706M-14, which is the most recent edition of the
Paulson standard, does not include minimum uniform elongation Reason statement: The ACI 318 Committee-requested revisions to
requirements. ACI 318 should include uniform elongation the ASTM A706/A706M standard appear unlikely to be published
requirements in place of or in addition to the current before ACI 318-19 is published. This is a structural safety concern,
requirements for minimum elongation across the fracture. because the lack of minimum uniform elongation requirements
Note that CALTRANS is also pushing ASTM for this change. may lead to structures that lack adequate ductility under seismic

14 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Alternatively, if the ASTM standard is updated to reflect these loading; this is a particular concern with higher grades of
changes, the updated ASTM standard should be referenced. reinforcement.

Specific Code/Commentary Change Proposal Required: The


proposed Code/Commentary Change Proposal is written in
combined response to address Public Comments 44-46 and affects
Section 20.2.1.3, R20.2.1.3, and 20.2.2.5. The proposed
requirements given in 20.2.1.3b (ii) and proposed Table 20.2.1.3c
specifically address Public Comment 46 and are similar to those
presently being balloted by ASTM. Language and format used is
consistent with approach taken in the ASTM standards.

Due to space limits in this response column, the


Code/Commentary Change Proposal Required to address the
cumulative response to Public Comments 44-46 are given in the
next cell.
Committee Response

<<NOTE: The Specific Code/Commentary Change Proposal Required to address cumulative responses to Public Comment Nos. 44, 45, and 46 follow. The strikeout/underline
shown in red are as they appeared in the version of ACI 318-19 that was distributed for Public Comment. The highlighted strikeout/underline in black or (double strikeout in red)
are the specific Code/Commentary changes to address the responses to the Public Comments. >>

20.2.1.3 Deformed bars shall conform to (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e), except bar sizes larger than No. 18 shall not be permitted:
(a) ASTM A615 – carbon steel, including supplementary requirements specified in Table 20.2.1.3a
(b) ASTM A706 – low-alloy steel, including supplementary requirements specified in (i), (ii), and (iii):
(i) Tensile property requirements for ASTM A706 Grade 100 reinforcement shall be as specified in Table 20.1.2.3b20.2.1.3b, and bend test requirements for ASTM A706 Grade 100
reinforcement shall be the same as the bend test requirements for ASTM A706 Grade 80 reinforcement.
(ii) Uniform elongation requirements for all grades of ASTM A706 reinforcement shall be as specified in Table 20.1.2.3c20.2.1.3c, and uniform elongation shall be determined as
the elongation at the maximum force sustained by the reinforcing bar test piece just prior to necking or fracture, or both.
(iii) For all grades of ASTM A706 reinforcement, the radius at the base of each the deformation shall be at least 1.5 times the height of the deformation., forThis requirement
applies to all deformations on a bar, including transverse lugs, longitudinal ribs, grade ribs, grade marks, and intersections between deformations. Conformance shall be assessed
by measurements taken on newly-machined rolls used to manufacture reinforcing bars, in lieu of measurements taken on samples of bar samples.
(c) ASTM A996 – axle steel and rail steel; bars from rail steel shall be Type R

15 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
(d) ASTM A955 – stainless steel
(e) ASTM A1035 – low-carbon chromium steel

Table 20.2.1.3a - Supplementary Modified tensile strength and additional tensile property requirements for ASTM A615 reinforcement

Grade 40 Grade 60 Grade 80 Grade 100

Tensile strength, minimum, psi 60 000 80 000 100 000 115 000

Ratio of actual tensile strength to 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10


actual yield strength, minimum

Table 20.2.1.3b – Supplementary tTensile property requirements for ASTM A706 Grade 100 reinforcement
Grade 100
Tensile strength, minimum, psi 117 000
Ratio of actual tensile strength to actual yield
1.17
strength, minimum
Yield strength, minimum, psi 100 000
Yield strength, maximum, psi 118 000
Fracture eElongation in 8 in., minimum, % 10

Table 20.2.1.3c - Supplementary uUniform elongation requirements for ASTM A706 reinforcement
Grade 60 Grade 80 Grade 100
Uniform Elongation, minimum, %
Bar Designation Nos.
 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 9 7 6
 11, 14, 18 6 6 6

16 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
R20.2.1.3 The supplementary requirements specified in 20.2.1.3(a) and (b), and in Tables 20.2.1.3a through c, are necessary because the referenced standards in Chapter 3, ASTM
A615-181 and ASTM A706-16, do not include these requirements. For project specifications, these requirements should be specified along with the corresponding ASTM
requirements. The supplementary requirements provide for harmonization of minimum tensile strength requirements between ASTM A615 and ASTM A706, add new ductility
requirements to both ASTM A615 and ASTM A706, and introduce Grade 100 reinforcement for ASTM A706. These requirements accommodate the introduction of higher strength
reinforcement into the Code for special seismic applications and have been developed considering both structural safety and production of reinforcement. The method for
determination of uniform elongation specified in 20.2.1.3(b)(ii) is taken from ASTM E8.
Low-alloy steel deformed bars conforming to ASTM A706 are intended for applications where controlled tensile properties, are required. ASTM A706 also includes
restrictions on chemical composition to enhance weldability for Grades 60 and 80, or both, are required.


In 2015, ASTM A615 included bar sizes larger than No. 18, and in 2016, ASTM A1035 also included bar sizes larger than No. 18. Bar sizes larger than No. 18 which are not
permitted by the this Code due to the lack of information on their performance including bar bends and development lengths.

20.2.2.5 Deformed nonprestressed longitudinal reinforcement resisting earthquake-induced moment, axial force, or both, in special moment framesseismic systems, special
structural walls, and all components of special structural walls including coupling beams and wall piers and anchor reinforcement in Seismic Design Categories C, D, E, and F shall
be in accordance with (a) or (b):
(a) ASTM A706, Grade 60, Grade 80 or Grade 80100 for special structural walls and Grade 60 and Grade 80 for special moment frames.
(b) ASTM A615 Grade 40 reinforcement if (i) and (ii) are satisfied and ASTM A615 Grade 60 reinforcement if (i) through (iii) (iv) are satisfied. ASTM A615 Grade 80 and Grade 100
are not permitted in special seismic systems.
(i) Actual yield strength based on mill tests does not exceed fy by more than 18,000 psi
(ii) Ratio of the actual tensile strength to the actual yield strength is at least 1.25
(iii) Minimum fracture elongation in 8 in. shall be at least 14 percent for bar sizes No. 3 through No. 6, at least 12 percent for bar sizes No. 7 through No. 11, and at least 10
percent for bar sizes No. 14 and No. 18.
(iv) Minimum uniform elongation shall be at least 9 percent for bar sizes No. 3 through No. 10, and at least 6 percent for bar sizes No. 1114, No.11 14, and No. 18.

<<Add the following to Commentary References, under the “ASTM International” section>>
ASTM E8/E8M-16a - Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials

47. Tennis 56 20 ASTM C150/C150M-18 is published and should be referenced. Accepted.


C150/C150M-19 has been approved and will be published in

17 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
April 2019; should be referenced depending on the publication
schedule for ACI 318.
48. DAVID MANTE 56 28 Most recent version of ASTM C469 is C469-14 (not C469-10 as Accepted.
referenced in draft). Was inclusion of updated version
considered?
49. Tennis 57 5 ASTM C595/C595M-18 is published and should be referenced. Accepted.
C595/C595-19 has been approved and will be published in April
2019; should be referenced depending on the publication
schedule for ACI 318.
50. Tennis 57 20 ASTM C1157/C1157M-17 is published and should be Accepted.
referenced.
51. David P. Gustafson 66 34 Should “seismic design category” be shown as “Seismic Design Disagree.
Category”? The forms used consistently throughout the code are as follows.
Ditto on Line 35. When “seismic design category” is used as a general term, it is
And on Page 67, Lines 1, 3, and 5. not capitalized; when “Seismic Design Category” refers to a
specific category, e.g. “Seismic Design Category D,” it is
capitalized.,
No change.
52. ACI Staff 70 6 Should this section receive some re-wording now that there Agree. Delete last sentence. Make editorial changes as shown
are specific one-way slab structural integrity provisions in below.
7.7.7?
R4.10.2:…Minimum requirements for structural integrity –
Structural members and their connections referred to in this
section include only member types that have specific
requirements for structural integrity. Notwithstanding, detailing
requirements for other member types address structural integrity
indirectly. Such is the case for detailing of one-way slabs as
provided in 7.7.

53. Ing. Hugo Juan 72 12 Reason for addition: for the design of foundations it is relevant The committee will consider the impact of flotation and uplift as
Donini to check the flotation, sliding and overturning conditions. New Business in coordination with ASCE 7.

18 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

5.2.4. FLOTATION

5.2.4.1. The effects of the pressure generated by the hydrostatic


uplift force under service conditions should be considered in the
design, in particular the uplift on foundations. Precautions
should be taken to prevent failure by buoyancy effects,
providing adequate self weight or ballast. It also must consider
the likely effect of leakage can generate in evaluating the water
table.

5.2.4.2. For design of flotation resistance should consider the


weight of the empty structure according to the expression
(5.2.4.2-1).

D  1 . Ar . (dr – dw) . w
(5.2.4.2-1)

where:
D dead weight of the structure.
1 flotation safety factor under article 5.2.4.3.
Ar foundation area of the structure.
dr depth of foundation.
dw depth of water table level.
w water density.

5.2.4.3. The flotation safety factor 1 should reflect the risk


associated with the hydrostatic loading condition. Commonly
used safety factors are 1.10 for worst-case conditions, such as
flood to the top of structure and using dead weight resistance
only, or 1.25 for well-defined design flood conditions below the
top of structure. A minimum safety factor of 1.25 is also
recommended where high ground water conditions exist.
Where maximum ground water or flood levels are not well

19 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
defined, or where soil friction is included in flotation resistance,
higher safety factors should be used.

5.2.5. SLIDING AND OVERTURNING

5.2.5.1. There are situations to evaluate sliding and / or


overturning in structures or components thereof due to soil
conditions or unbalanced loads, wind actions, etc. The minimum
values of the sliding safety factor stability, 2 and the minimum
base area in compression is shown in Table 5.2.5.1.

Table 5.2.5.1. Safety factors of stability*

Loading condition Minimum safety Minimum base area


factor stability 2 in compression
Usual 1,5 100%
Inusual 1,33 75%
*Table is not intended to apply to structures that rely on
anchorage devices, such as rock or soil anchors, for stability.
Loads used to calculate safety factors should be service loads.

The usual load state corresponds to that expected in normal


operation of the structure, while the unusual be likened to
building situations.
The safety factor to overturning, 3 must be greater than 1.5. For
elevated structures, service charges that resist overturning are
the self weight D when combined with wind W, D + F when
combined with the earthquake E, and the self weight D
combined with earthquake E.

54. Mark W 72 12 I provided a detailed comment on 5.3.7 during the 318-14 The Committee agrees that the definition of F should be revised
Cunningham public comment period. The committee’s response was: “The as follows:
treatment of fluids load F in 318-14 is consistent with ASCE/SEI

20 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
7-10. See ASCE/SEI 7-10 commentary section C2.3.2 for further “F = effect of service lateral load due to fluids with well-defined
information.” pressures and maximum heights”

However, the treatment of fluid loads in ACI 318-14 (and 318-


19) is not consistent with ASCE 7-10 for a few reasons, and this
results in unintended consequences. To be consistent with
ASCE 7-10, perhaps ACI 318 should refer the user directly to
ASCE 7-10 instead of providing a modified version of the ASCE
7-10 provisions. ACI 318 5.3.9 and 5.3.10 do reference ASCE 7
in this way and doing so would be akin to how IBC refers the
user to ASCE 7. It would also eliminate similar issues if ACI 318
updates for consistency with a newer version of ASCE 7 in the
future. (It is inferred that the ACI 318 committee decided
against updating the code with respect to ASCE 7-16 at this
time.)

1. In ACI 318, F is defined as: “effect of service lateral


load due to fluids with well-defined pressures and
maximum heights”. In ASCE 7-10, it is defined as:
“load due to fluids with well-defined pressures and
maximum heights”. Hence, in ASCE 7 it includes both
lateral and vertical loads. This is also mentioned in
C2.3.2 as follows. “Where F acts as a resistance to
uplift forces, it should be included with dead load D.”
and “To make it clear that the fluid weight in a tank
can be used to resist uplift, F was added to load
combination 7, where it will be treated as a dead load
only when F counteracts E.”
2. ACI 318 separates lateral load, F, from the liquid
weight. So, it isn’t clear how ACI 318 addresses the
vertical load that is due to the liquid that causes F.

21 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
3. ACI 318 identifies the “Primary load” for each load
combination in T5.3.1. Primary loads are not identified
this way in ASCE 7-10.
4. Per T5.3.1, F and H aren’t the primary loads for any of
the load combinations. But F and H could be the
primary loads. (One example is if the effect of E adds
to the effect of F, with F being the primary load.)
5. ACI 318 also doesn’t consider the case where F adds
to E, when E is the primary load (Eq 5.3.11g).
6. Because H is not a primary load, it is not clear how ACI
318 treats F in adding to or counteracting H. This is
not addressed in 5.3.7.
7. ACI 318, 5.3.8 addresses H acting alone, or adding to
or counteracting the primary load effect. Since F is not
a primary load for any load combination, it is not clear
how the code treats H in relation to F.
8. In ACI 318, 5.3.7(c) and (d) address F being either
permanent or not permanent. ASCE 7-10 does not
consider F to be permanent. The corresponding
commentary in C2.3.2 states: “However [F] is not
permanent; emptying and filling causes fluctuating
forces in the structure…” and “F is not included in
combination 6 because the wind load can be present
whether the tank is full or empty, so the governing
load case in combination 6 is when F is zero.”
55. Ing. Hugo Juan 72 16 Reason for change: consider the loads due to fluids with well- New Business
Donini defined pressures and maximum heights and loads due to
weight and pressure of soil, water in soil, or other materials, or
related internal moments and forces in the load combinations.
These cases may be relevant in the design of foundations.

Table 5.3.1 – Loads combinations

22 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Load combination Equation Primary
load
U = 1.4 (D + F) (5.3.1a) D and F
U = 1.2 (D + F) + 1,6 (L + H) + 0,5 (Lr or S or R) (5.3.1b) L+H
U = 1.2 D + 1,6 (Lr or S or R) + (1.0 L or 0.5 W) (5.3.1c) Lr or S or R
U = 1.2 D + 1,0 W + 1.0 L + 0.5 (Lr or S or R) (5.3.1d) W
U = 1.2 D + 1,0 E + 1.0 (L + Lr) + 0.2 S (5.3.1e) E
U = 0.9 D + 1.0 W + 1.0 H (5.3.1b) W and H
U = 0.9 D + 1.0 E + 1.6 H (5.3.1b) E and H

56. David P. Gustafson 76 4 Consider replacing “earthquake loads” with “earthquake Agreed.
effects”.
57. John Gardner 76 10 5.3.1 Load Factor for Loads due to construction process Accept as New Business. The committee will take up as new
business clarification of the responsibility for the consideration of
(suggest 1.2) the effects of shoring and reshoring upon deflections.

R5.3.1 Flat plates are usually constructed using a single

level of shores (forms) which support the freshly placed

concrete, supported on the most recently cast plate which in turn

is supported by reshores from earlier cast, but still immature,

plates. Without further information, it is recommended that the

upper supporting plate be assumed to carry its own self weight

plus 0.55 of the weight of the freshly cast plate plus 0.55 of the

shore self weight plus 0.55 of the construction live load. Flat

23 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
plates have two areas of concern; punching shear, which can

occur during construction when the developed strength of the

immature concrete is low and large immediate and creep

deflections during service.

(Reference - Monette Luc and Gardner N. J. ,


“Shored/Reshored Construction of Flat Plates -
Analyses of the effect of reshore stiffness on load distribution”,

ACI Concrete International, Sept. 2015, pp 52-60.)

58. Ing. Hugo Juan 80 1 Reason for addition: it is important to generate loads Disagree. Elevated water tanks should be covered in ACI 350, not
Donini combinations in service conditions that allow the designers to 318.
make decisions about phenomena such as deformations and
cracking.
5.3.14. SERVICE LOADS COMBINATION
5.3.14.1. Group 1
In elevated structures, as elevated water tanks, the
combinations designers must analyze at least when the effects
of one or more acting simultaneously:
D+F (5.3.14.1a)
D+F+G+S+L+T (5.3.14.1b)
D+G+W+L+S (5.3.14.1c)
D + F + G + 0,7 E + L + S (5.3.14.1d)
When:
G = eccentric load effects due to dead load and water

24 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
For serviceability limit states involving visually objectionable
deformations, repairable cracking or other damage to interior
finishes, and other short-term effects, the suggested load
combinations are:
D+L (5.3.14.1e)
D + 0.5S (5.3.14.1f)
For serviceability limit states involving creep, settlement, or
similar long-term or permanent effects, the suggested load
combination is:
D + 0.5L (5.3.14.1g)
The dead load effect, D, used in applying Eqs. 5.3.14.1e,
5.3.14.1f and 5.3.14.1g may be that portion of dead load that
occurs after attachment of nonstructural elements. For
example, in composite construction, the dead load effects
frequently are taken as those imposed after the concrete has
cured; in ceilings, the dead load effects may include only those
loads placed after the ceiling structure is in place.
The following load combination, derived similarly to Eqs.
5.3.14.1e and 5.3.14.1f, can be used to check shortterm effects:
D + 0.5L + Wa
(5.3.14.1h)
in which Wa is wind load based on serviceability wind speeds.
5.3.14.3.2. Group 2
Combinations designers must analyze at least when D or F
reduce the effects of W or E:
0,6 D + W
(5.3.14.2a)
0,6 D + 0,7 E
(5.3.14.2b)

25 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
0,6 (D + F) + 0,7 E
(5.3.14.2c)

59. Adam Lubell 83 5 For Clause 6.2.5.3 and related commentary, consider providing Disagree on first point. The last sentence in R6.2.5.3 provides
a direct explanation that justifies a limit of “1.4Mu” since that reason for the 1.4 factor.
limit is not present in other international design codes. With
clause renumbering, this check in Fig R6.2.5.3 is incorrect Agree on second point. Changed reference in Figure R6.2.5.3 to
labelled. 1.4Mu factor (change from 6.2.6 to 6.2.5.3).
60. Restrepo J.I. and 97 8 This line should read Agree. Change made.
Rodriguez M.E. “…shear walls structural walls”

The reason is that in ACI 318-19 the wording “structural walls”


is used instead of “shear walls”
61. Restrepo J.I. and 103 5 This line should read Agree. Change made.
Rodriguez M.E. “…shear walls structural walls”
See reason given in comment on page 97, line 8.
62. David P. Gustafson 107 14 Line 2 in R6.6.4.6.4 – Simply an observation; note the No change needed.
terminology “computer analysis programs”.
Ditto – Line 2 in R6.7.1.2.
63. ACI Staff 108 23 No line numbers in Chapter 6 commentary. Last paragraph of Disagree. No change needed.
R6.6.5 – is there any way to reword the code in 6.4.3.3 to state
that moment redistribution is not allowed using this loading
pattern? If so, then the wording of the code provision 6.6.5.1
could be simplified to something along the lines of “Except
where not permitted in 6.5, 6.8, and 6.4.3.3,…”
64. David P. Gustafson 111 4 Consider replacing “great” with “large”. Agree. Change made.
65. David P. Gustafson 111 5 In Section R6.9.2, Line 5, should “analysis” be replaced with the Agree. Change made.
plural “analyses
66. David P. Gustafson 111 13 In Section R6.9.3, Line 1, should “For inelastic finite element Agree. Change made to“For an inelastic finite element analysis,
analysis, the rules . . .” be revised to: the rules…”
• “For an inelastic finite element analysis, the rules . . . “
• Or to: “For inelastic finite element analyses, the rules .
..“

26 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
67. Reid W. Castrodale 116 4 7.3.1.1.2 Disagree.
The reference to a range of lightweight concrete from 90 to
115 pcf appears to be a carry over from the old definitions of The commentary of R7.3.1 refers to R9.3.1. It was decided not to
lightweight concrete. However, the commentary for Article repeat every single section for the commentary, but rather have
9.3.1.1.2 explains why this range is shown. the general section refer to commentary.

Therefore, commentary should be added for this article that No change needed.
would be the same as Article R9.3.1.1.2.
68. Reid W. Castrodale 116 10 Through line 11 Disagree.
7.3.1.1.3
This sentence does not make sense to me – I am not aware of This provision is referring to a composite slab where one part of
situations where there is “a combination of lightweight and the composite slab is made with normalweight concrete while
normalweight concrete.” another (such as a topping) is made with lightweight concrete.
This provision has been worded as such for many years.
Perhaps this is intended to address situations where they are
both present in a slab because of puddling of higher strength No change needed.
normalweight concrete around the column, but the proper
word for that situation would not be that the concretes are
combined, which means to me that the types of concrete
would actually be mixed. It seems that it would be better to say
that they are present simultaneously in the slab.

Another possible intended meaning could be that this sentence


is addressing a combination of lightweight and normal weight
aggregate, not a combination of NW and LW concrete as
stated.

Please clarify. It appears that the code should be revised and a


statement in the commentary added.
69. Adam Lubell 119 1 In 7.6.3.1, minimum shear reinforcement in slabs is only Disagree.
required when Vu>Phi*Vc whereas for beams, 9.6.3 requires
minimum shear reinforcement when This limit has been successfully used in the Code since 1971. For
Vu>Phi*1.0*root(fc’)*bw*d except for specific exemptions in slabs, load sharing is recognized by ACI 318 due to variation in

27 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Table 9.6.3.1. There are no exemptions listed in 7.6.3.1 and loading as well as continuity of the slab system. In the 318-19
therefore designs utilizing Phi*Vc without providing shear Code, a size effect factor account for member depth has been
reinforcement will occur, including slabs and footings with vary added which reduces the nominal shear strength for thicker slabs
large thicknesses and/or with low reinforcement ratios due to and increases safety of these thicker slab system.
member depth and/or use of high strength reinforcement.
No change needed.
Lubell (2006) and Sherwood et al (2006) demonstrated through
laboratory testing that member width does not influence the
shear stress at failure for members detailed as slabs compared
to members detailed as beams when the loading was
approximately uniform across the width. Therefore, for the
common slab or footing loading scenario of uniformly
distributed loading on the entire slab, there is no justification
to relax the minimum shear reinforcement requirement
relative to that applying to beams and thus 7.6.3.1 should
require minimum shear reinforcement with the same sectional
shear limit criteria as 9.6.3.1. If the code committee believes
the “load sharing” argument in R7.6.3.1 is justified in some
cases, such as patch loading, the code committee should
develop a new clause to guide a designer on the appropriate
distribution width that can be used for 7.6.3.1 checks.

References cited:
[1] Lubell, A.S., “Shear in Wide Reinforced Concrete Members”,
PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, 2006, 455 pp
[2] Sherwood,E.G.; Lubell,A.S.; Bentz,E.C; and Collins,M.P.
“One way shear strength of thick slabs and wide beams”, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol 103, Nov 2006.
70. Adam Lubell 124 22 R7.6.3.1 should also refer to Lubell (2006) and Sherwood et al Disagree.
(2006) where it was demonstrated that member width does
not influence the shear stress at failure for slabs when Please see response to Comment 69, page 119, line 1 Lubell. The
approximately uniform loading across the width is present. This addition of these references is not considered needed.
negates the argument in the first sentence of R7.6.3.1 that the

28 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
possibility of load sharing allows less stringent minimum shear No change needed.
requirements. See also comment submitted by Lubell at Page
119 Line 1.
71. Dan Mullins 135 1 Should say “drop panel or shear cap” to be consistent with Agree. Change made.
definitions and previous sentence.
72. Dan Mullins 135 2 Should say “drop panel or shear cap” to be consistent with Agree.
definitions and previous sentence.
Change made.
73. Amin Ghali and 135 4 Through line 10 and page 163 line 6 through 164 line 10 Disagree.
Ramez B. Gayed Subsequent to public discussion of ACI 318-14, studies confirm
the position of ACI Committee 421 and the discussers regarding The noted procedures are effectively existing code language.
the permitted increase of f and the corresponding reduction of
v in 8.4.2.2.4 and R8.4.2.2.4. We are not aware of any problems associated with as-built slabs
related to application of these provisions.
Shear and bending in two way slabs must comply with: “4.5.1
Analytical procedures shall satisfy compatibility of No change needed.
deformations and equilibrium of forces.” Removal of 8.4.2.2.4
and R8.4.2.2.4 is proposed, because they violate equilibrium.
They permit replacing shear and bending parameters complying
with 4.5.1 with emperical values that violate equilibrium. Table
8.4.2.2.4 is based on interpretation of test results without
considering equilibrium. Shear in two-way slabs is equal to
derivative of bending (Timpshenko and Krieger, 1959); this
relationship applies in all load stages.

The increase of f, with equal reduction of v according to Table


8.4.2.2.4, underestimates the required shear reinforcement.
Reduced or eliminated shear reinforcement cannot be replaced
by additional flexural reinforcement. This is not permited for
frames; it should be disallowed in two-way slabs. Similarly, the
minimum flexural reinforcement As,min, required in 8.6.1.2 and
R8.6.1 to resist flexure-induced punching, does not justify
reduction or elimination of required shear reinforcement. 8.6.1.2
and R8.6.1.2 are new in ACI 318-19.

29 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
The suggested removal of optional 8.4.2.2.4 and R8.4.2.2.4
enhances safety without losing simplicity. The optional
reduction of v, introduced in 1980s to simplify design, is not
needed in current practice. Design of shear reinforcement in
slabs is routinely and easily done with computers, using v
specified in 8.4.4.2 and R8.4.4.2, that are derived by finite-
element analyses (Elgabry and Ghali, 1996; Gayed and Ghali,
2008; Megally and Ghali, 1996).

References:
Timosheko, S. and Woinowsky-Krieger, S., 1959, “Theory of
Plates and Shells, 2nd Ed., McGraw Hill, New York.
Elgabry, A.A., and Ghali, A., 1996, “Moment Transfer by Shear
in Slab-Column Connections,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 93,
No. 2, March-April, pp. 187-196.
Gayed, R.B., and Ghali, A., 2008, “Unbalanced Moment
Resistance in Slab-Column Joints: Analytical Assessment,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 134, No. 5, May,
pp. 859-864.
Megally, S.H. and Ghali, A., 1996, “Nonlinear Analysis of
Moment Transfer Between Columns and Slabs”, Proceedings,
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Annual Conference,
Edmonton, Alberta, May, Vol. 2a, pp. 321-332.
74. Amin Ghali and 138 27 Through page 139, line 4 Disagree.
Ramez B. Gayed
Calibration of test results was based on yield-line analysis with In accordance with results of the test data calibration described
concentric and eccentric Vu. The code should require As,min in R8.6.1.2, the As,min required by Eq. 8.6.1.2 is greater than that
computed by yield-line analysis. Simplified analysis should be required by yield line analysis. Further, if the wrong yield line
in R8.6.1.2; replace 8.6.1.2 on pages 138-139 by: mechanism is selected for a given loading condition, the design
may be unsafe. In addition, because column spacings can be
8.6.1.2 Top flexural reinforcement of cross-sectional area ≥
irregular, the use of a width bslab is more realistic than a radius of
As,min determined by yield-line analysis, shall be provided in two
0.2lc
orthogonal directions over area of radius 0.2lc, surrounding
column or reaction area.
Editorial changes made:
1. Change vug in Eq. 8.6.1.2 to vuv.
30 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
2. Move heading R8.6.1.2 (Page 167, Line 2) to paragraph
beginning on p.166 line 20 “Tests on interior …”
75. Ing. Hugo Juan 141 7 Through line 9: Disagree.
Donini Reason for change: in case of more demanding exposure
categories (F2, F3, S2, S3, W2, C1 and C2), it is suggested to Existing code provisions have shown to provide adequate
reduce maximum spacing s of deformed longitudinal durability.
reinforcement in order to verify the most demanding cracking
criteria. No change needed.

8.7.2.2. For nonprestressed solid slabs, maximum spacing s of


deformed longitudinal reinforcement shall be the lesser of 2h
and 18 in. at critical sections, and the lesser of 3h and 18 in. at
other sections.

8.7.2.2.1 In slabs exposed to exposure categories F2, F3, S2, S3,


W2, C1 and C2, the maximum spacing s of the bending and
tension reinforcement must be less or equal to that shown in
Figure 8.7.2.2.1. The values are plotted as a function of the
minimum concrete cover to centroid of steel dc at the tensile
face for plates with different supports, uniform loads and lmin /
lmax ratios of 0.5, 0.7 and 1.0.

31 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Variation of the maximum spacing s of deformed longitudinal reinforcement in two-way slabs and
Name walls
12.00 in

11.00 in lmin/lmax = 0,5

10.00 in

9.00 in lmin/lmax = 0,7

Maximum spacing (s)


8.00 in

lmin/lmax = 1
7.00 in

6.00 in

5.00 in

4.00 in

3.00 in

2.00 in
1.70 in 1.80 in 1.90 in 2.00 in 2.10 in 2.20 in 2.30 in 2.40 in 2.50 in 2.60 in 2.70 in 2.80 in
Minimum concrete cover to centroid of steel at the tensile face (d c)

Figure 8.7.2.2.1 — Variation of the maximum spacing s of


deformed longitudinal reinforcement in
two-way slabs with uniform loads
(exposure categories F2, F3, S2, S3, W2,
C1 y C2)

R 8.7.2.2.1 — The equations for crack control in beams or slabs


in one direction may become unsuitable for those developed in
the slabs and plates into two directions (ACI 224R). ACI 224R
proposed expressions relating the service-load stress with the
spacing of the reinforcement, maintaining a constant
relationship with the concrete cover, as on slabs, such factor
remains practically constant. From investigations developed by
Nawy and Blair in 1971, the ACI 224R-01 discusses the use of the
equation C 8.7.2.2.2-1 for the prediction of probable maximum
crack width in slabs and plates in two directions:

wmáx = 0,145.k..fs. GI (R 8.7.2.2.1-1)

32 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
with:
wmáx = crack width at face of concrete caused by flexure, in.
k = fracture coefficient Table C 8.7.2.2.1.

Table R 8.7.2.2.1 — Fracture coefficients for slabs for slabs and


plates

Span
Fracture
Boundary ratio
Loading type Slab shape coefficient
condition lmin/lma
k (.10-5)
x
4 edges
Concentrated Square 1,0 2,1
restrained
4 edges
Concentrated Square simply 1,0 2,1
supported
Uniformly 4 edges
Rectangular 0,5 1,6
distributed restrained
Uniformly 4 edges
Rectangular 0,7 2,2
distributed restrained
3 edges
Uniformly
Rectangular restrained 0,7 2,3
distributed
y 1 hinged
2 edges
Uniformly
Rectangular restrained 0,7 2,7
distributed
y 2 hinged
Uniformly 4 edges
Square 1,0 2,8
distributed restrained
3 edges
Uniformly
Square restrained 1,0 2,9
distributed
y 1 hinged

33 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
2 edges
Uniformly
Square restrained 1,0 4,2
distributed
y 2 hinged

 = 1.25 (chosen to simplify calculations, although it varies


between 1.20 and 1.35).
fs = actual average service-load stress level or 40% of the
specified yield strength fy, ksi.
Gl = grid index equation R 8.7.2.2.2-2.
d .s s .s .d 8
GI = b1 2 = 1 2 c . R 8.7.2.2.1-2
 t1 db1 
db1 = diameter of the reinforcement in Direction 1 closest to the
concrete outer fibers, in.
s1 = spacing of the reinforcement in Direction 1, in..
s2 = spacing of the reinforcement in perpendicular Direction 2,
in.
t1 = active steel ratio, that is, the area of steel As per ft
width/[12db1+ 2c1]
c1 = clear concrete cover measured from the tensile face of
concrete to the nearest edge of the reinforcing bar in Direction
1.
dc = concrete cover to centroid of reinforcement, in.
From equation R 8.7.2.2.1-1, the maximum possible spacing of
flexural reinforcement for a given condition of cracking is:
2
w máx = 0,145.k..fs . GI  GI =  w máx 
 R
 0,145.k..fs 
8.7.2.2.1-3
Assuming s1 = s2 = s:
GI .db1.
sl  R 8.7.2.2.1-4
dc .8

34 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
From this expression, was drawn Figure 8.7.2.2.1, which raises
spacing of flexural reinforcement in slabs and walls under more
severe exposure categories.
For the confection of Figure 8.7.2.2.1 is considered a maximum
crack width of 0,01 in., an average service-load stress level fs of
24 ksi (0,4 . 60 ksi), a minimum concrete cover of 1-1/2 in. (see
Table 20.6.1.3.1), a coefficient  equal to 1,25 and coefficient
fracture for slabs with uniformly distributed for span ratios lmin /
lmax of 0,5, 0,7 and 1,0 with different boundary condition. The
rebar diameters ranges were considered No. 8 to 18.

76. Amin Ghali and 145 12 Through line 13: Disagree:


Ramez B. Gayed The sentence on lines 12-13 is: “Headed stud shear
reinforcement shall be permitted if placed perpendicular to the This issue was suggested as a topic for examination in the 318-19
plane of the slab”. Delete the words “if placed perpendicular to cycle. However, no evidence could be found of tests where
the plane of the slab”. inclined headed stud shear reinforcement had been used in tests
or in practice. Results of tests are desirable before such a change
The words to be deleted require placing the shear reinforcement is made.
in an orientation other than the most effective one. No basis is
given for disallowing inclined headed studs in slabs, while
It should be noted that alternate systems can be proposed under
allowing stirrups in all members without such restriction.
Assemblies automatically maintain specified spacing and Code Section 1.10.
orientation of studs until concrete is cast; with stirrups, control
of spacing and orientation is necessary, but is not as easy. The No change needed.
current comment proposes removing the restriction and
insertion of commentary R7.7.1.
77. John Gardner 160 23 Through line 27 New business. The minimum thickness requirements were
considered for updating in this code cycle, but further review is
8.3.1 Two-way slab minimum thickness requirements needed.
R8.3.1 The provisions suggested by Ofuso-Asamoah and

Gardner take account of the construction cycle – age and

35 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
magnitude of first construction loading on the limiting span

thickness ratios.

(Reference - Ofosu-Asamoah K. and Gardner N. J., “Flat Slab


Thickness to Satisfy Serviceability including Early Age
Construction Loads”. ACI Structural Journal, Nov-Dec 1997. Pp
700-707)

78. Amin Ghali and 164 26 8.4.4.2.3 is a key section for strength design of two-way slabs. Disagree.
Ramez B. Gayed R8.4.4.2.3 is revised below to give a general equation for vc that
applies to critical sections of any shape, with eccentric force Vu. This is textbook material and not needed.
Symbol Jc is defined such that the equation of vc gives stress
whose resultant = the eccentric force Vu. On line 26 of page 164, No change needed.
remove the heading R8.4.4.2.3 and insert:

R8.4.4.2.3 In general, eccentric force Vu is equivalent to Vu at


the centroid of the shear critical section’s perimeter, combined
with Msc. At point (x, y) on the perimeter of a shear critical
section of general shape, the shear stress due to eccentric
shearing force Vu is calculated by:

Vu   v Msc   M 
vu = +  y +  v sc  x
bo d  Jc x  Jc y
(R8.4.4.2.3)

Jc = d multiplied by moment of inertia of shear critical section’s


perimeter about its principal axis x or y. The subscripts x and y
refer to the principal axes. Referring to the shear critical section
in Fig. R8.4.4.2.3,

36 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
d (c1 + d ) d (c2 + d )(c1 + d )
3 2

Jc = +
6 2
---------------------End of insertion---------------------

Delete lines 5-8 of page 165.

In R2.2, insert a definition of Jc as given above.


79. Amin Ghali and 166 20 Through line 27: Disagree.
Ramez Gayed As,min to resist flexure-induced punching is necessary over an
assumed pattern of yield lines. Lines 20-27 of page 166 should As worded, the commentary adequately supports the Code
be more accurately replaced by: provisions.

Tests show that yielding of the slab’s flexural tension Please see response to Comment 74, page 138, line 27, Ghali.
reinforcement in the vicinity of interior column leads to
Further, the appropriate  factor to use is the  factor for shear
increased local rotations and opening of any inclined crack
because the proposed As,min provision is intended to prevent a
existing within the slab (Hawkins and Ospina 2017; Widianto et
brittle punching shear failure in a slab whose flexural capacity is
al. 2009; Muttoni 2008). Peiris and Ghali 2012 and Gayed et al.
2017 show by tests and analysis that unless As,min is provided less than that associated with a shear stress of 4 sqrt f’c. and
over potential yield-lines in the vicinity of columns, sliding above that associated with the shear stress for a yield line
along inclined crack can cause flexure-driven punching failure analysis.
at a shear force less than the strength calculated by the two-way
shear equations in Tables 22.6.5.2 and 22.6.6.2; this finding is As,min is defined such that the factored shear force on the critical
calibrated with eccentric Vu and with Vu at the centroid of the section for shear in the slab equals the shear force associated
shear critical section. Dam et al. 2017 calibrated tests using with local yielding of the slab flexural reinforcement around the
equivalent yield-line analysis. column.

As,min is cross-sectional area of top reinforcement placed above No change needed.


column to resist flexure-induced punching. Unless As,min is
provided over an assumed pattern of yield lines, sliding along
inclined crack causes flexure-induced punching failure at a shear
force less than the strength calculated by the two-way shear
equations of Table 22.6.5.2 or 22.6.6.2.

37 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
As,min is required to control flexural cracks at yield lines. In
calculating the flexural strength provided by As,min, the strength
reduction factor is  for flexure.

Reference:
Gayed, R.B., Peiris, C. and Ghali, A., 2017, “Flexure-Induced
Punching of Concrete Flat Plates,” American Concrete Institute,
fib Bulletin 81, March, pp. 73-100.
80. Amin Ghali and 167 2 Through line 10 Disagree.
Ramez B. Gayed Replace lines 2-10 on page 167 by R8.6.1.2 as given below. The
equation for As,min is revised to give the minimum flexural Please see response to Comments 74, page 138, line 27, Ghali
reinforcement required over the area of yield-line pattern. As,min and 80, page 166, line 20-27, Ghali.
is not additional to the flexural reinforcement required by other
code equations. The total flexural reinforcement area required No change needed.
by the code for the governing Vu includes As,min .These revisions
are done in the proposed R8.6.1.2 given below.

Equation 8.6.1.2 of ACI 318-19 draft, gives As,min required over


bslab. Replace Eq. 8.6.1.2 by Eq. R8.6.1.2 (in the revised
version) to give the flexural reinforcement required over area of
potential yield-line pattern; use  for flexure.

Equation 8.6.1.2 gives  min providing a strength less than the


strength required in a column strip. This means that 8.6.1.2 in
ACI 318-19 draft, does not govern the design of flexural
reinforcement over interior columns. As example, consider an
interior column with centre-to-centre span between columns in
orthogonal directions, lc = 344 in. (8.7 m); ln = 323.8 in.; vug =
203 psi; square column = 20.7 in.; bslab = 50.2 in.; bo = 116.4 in.;
s = 40; fy = 58 ksi;  (shear) = 0.75. Equation 8.6.1.2 gives:
As,min =
5 vug bslab bo /( s fy) = 3.41 in.2 (’= 0.80 percent over bslab),
compared with ’= 0.66 percent required over column strip
width = 172 in. (As within column strip = 9.53 in.2). This
example shows that 8.6.1.2 has no effect on flexural
38 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
reinforcement design. Similarly, 8.6.1.2 does not govern the
design of flexural reinforcement in any of the four examples in
the revised R8.6.1.2 (proposed below), or with any practical lc.

For interior column, Eq. 8.6.1.2 of the ACI 318-19 draft and the
proposed Eq. R8.6.1.2 are based on the same yield-line
equation: the required flexural strength per unit length is
approximately equal to Vu/8. Although the two equations should
give approximately the same As,min per unit width (same ’), the
total amounts of reinforcement are different because the of the
difference in the zone to be covered.

The parameter bslab , specifies location of flexural reinforcement


associated with Msc. Both parameters: bslab and Msc, are
irrelevant to the flexural reinforcement required to avoid
premature development of a yield-line mechanism. As,min is
required over the area of the potential yield-line pattern that can
induce punching (with any Msc ≥ 0).

Proposed R8.6.1.2:
R8.6.1.2 An idealised yield-line pattern of isotropic slab,
induced by shearing force, Vu = vu,max bo d, is assumed. The
force Vu is located at the centroid of the shear critical section
(Fig. R8.6.1.2). Actual column cross-sectional area = c2 is
idealized as a circular column of equal area. Equilibrium of a
typical slab segment gives (Ghali and Gayed, 2019):

v u ,m ax bo d v u ,m ax bo d
(m + m) = 
2  (1 − 2.8 c l c ) 8
m =  fy d 1 − 0.59 ( fy fc)
2

min =  
As ,min (0.4 l ) = 
c min bd
(R8.6.1.2)

39 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
where vu,max = maximum absolute value of vu calculated by Eq.
R8.4.4.2.3 for the shear critical section at d/2 from periphery of
actual column; lc = larger center-to-center distance between
columns in adjacent panels;  = flexural strength reduction
factor; m and m = flexural strengths per unit length provided
by top and bottom reinforcements, respectively; As,min = cross-
sectional area of top flexural reinforcement providing moment
strength = m (0.4 lc ) ; b = unit length. Flexural strength, m =
fraction of m = strength provided by bottom flexural
reinforcement ≥ the minimum required for shrinkage and
temperature in 24.4.3.2.

Derivation of Eq. R8.6.1.2 conservatively substitutes eccentric


forc Vu by a force = vu,max bo d at centroid of shear critical
section. The flexural strength per unit length of prestressed
reinforcement can be deducted from ( m + m). The calculated
As,min provided to resist flexure-induced punching includes all
reinforcement required for strength in 8.4. Thus, the design for
As,min does not necessarily increase the total amount required for
flexural strength.

Assuming, m = m 4 ,the above equations give:  min = 0.53,


0.53, 0.56 and 0.60 percent, respectively for lc = 220, 276, 344
and 413 in. Data: uniform gravity load, qu = (106 h + 638)×10-3
psi, with h in inch; d = h – 1.4 in.; h = lc/35; Vu = qu lc2 ; c = 0.06
lc; fc = 4350 p---si; fy = 58×103 psi;  = 0.9.

Reference:
Ghali, A. and Gayed, R.B., 2019,” Universal Design for
Punching Resistant Concrete Slabs”, ACI Structural Journal,
January, Vol. 116, N0. 1, pp. 207-212.

40 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

4 c

0.4 lc (Empirical)
Segment
isolated in
Vflex
part (b)

Cross-sectional area of column = c2;


c = side of square column (not shown)
(a)
V
Downwardforce= flex
0.4  lc

m
Support 1
m

m
1c m
Radius = 0.2 lc
(b)
Fig. R8.6.1.2—Assumed yield-line pattern for derivation of Eq.
R8.6.1.2. (a) Yield-line pattern (b) Forces and moments on
isolated segment
81. Amin Ghali and 173 24 Immediately below line 24, insert commentary R7.7.1: Disagree.
Ramez B. Gayed
R7.7.1 Experiments show that shear reinforcement is more Please see response to Comment 76, page 145, line 12, Ghali.
effective when placed perpendicular to shear cracks (Dilger,
2017). Inclined headed studs are permitted for beams; they No change needed.
should also be allowed for slabs. Tables 8.7.7.1.2, 22.6.6.1 and
22.6.6.3 recognize that headed stud shear reinforcement is more
effective than stirrups. The incline of studs induces no

41 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
difficulty: assemblies maintain the studs in specified orientation,
spacing and cover until concrete is cast.

Headed studs, placed in direction perpendicular to potential


shear cracks, is used with vs calculated by Eq. 22.5.8.5.4,
adjusted below for slabs:
A f
v s = v yt (sin  + cos  )
bo s
with s measured in direction parallel to slab surface;  =
inclination angle of studs with slab surface (Ghali and Gayed,
2017).

References:
Dilger, W.H., 2017, “Inclined Stirrups and Inclined Stud Shear
Reinforcement in Zones of High Shear”, ACI SP-321—10.
Ghali, A. and Gayed R.B., 2017, “Inclined Headed Stud Shear
Reinforcement: Design and Detailing”, ACI SP-321—11.
82. Amin Ghali and 173 31 The stud assemblies in Fig. R8.7.7 are placed perpendicular to Disagree.
Ramez B. Gayed column sides, with one assembly at each column corner. At a
wide column side, it may be necessary to provide more than two Commentary figures are intended to indicate one possible
stud assemblies. To avoid ambiguity, insert at end of paragraph: configuration. Other configurations are possible.

The assemblies of headed studs in Fig. R8.7.7 are placed No change needed
perpendicular to column sides with one assembly close to each
column corner, such that: number of assemblies within column
side ≥ 1+[(width of column side – 3 times stud diameter (or
width of rail))/2d]. Rules for design and detailing of headed stud
assemblies and flexural reinforcement apply with the crucifix
layout in Fig. R8.7.7. Radial layout follows different rules;
mingling the rules can cause interference of flexural and shear
reinforcement (Ghali, and Gayed, 2017). Values of vc in Table
22.6.6.1(b) apply only with the crucifix layout of stud
assemblies.

42 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Reference:
Ghali, 2017 and Gayed, 2017, Discussions of Title 114-S19,
“Behavior of Monotonically Loaded Slab-Column Connections
Reinforced with Shear Studs”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol.
114, No. 6, November-December.
83. Amin Ghali and 187 2 The spacing ≤ 2d between legs of stirrups needs to be shown in Disagree.
Ramez Gayed Figs. 8.7.6d and e. A relevant statement needs to be inserted at
end of R8.7.6. Detailing requirements for stirrups are shown in Fig. R8.7.6b. In
addition, spacing ≤ 2d is indicated in Figures 8.7.6d & 8.7.6e.

No change needed.
84. Robinson 193 21 This line still has the density range of 90 to 115 pcf from the old Disagree.
definition of lightweight concrete. A sentence should be added
to the commentary matching the one that appears in No change needed. The explanation for densities greater than
R7.3.1.1.2 that explains why the range does not extend for the 115 pcf is provided in the commentary of R9.3.1.1.2.”
full range of densities given in the definition of lightweight
concrete.
85. Reid W. Castrodale 193 27 Through line 28 Disagree.
9.3.1.1.3
Same comment as for p. 116, lines 10-11. Please see response to comment 67, page 116, line 4, Castrodale.

No change needed.
86. Allan Bommer 196 27 9.6.1.2 can provide unsafe results when reinforcement is Not persuasive.
placed in odd locations (such as the centroid of a section). The
cracking moment varies with h and the capacity varies with d. The statement is correct; if the reinforcement is placed in the
wrong face, it is not effective. At the same time, placing
The following plot shows the relationship of d/h and the factor reinforcement in the correct location is the responsibility of the
of safety (φMn/Mcr). LDP.

No change needed.

43 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

It can be see that the current equation ranges from unsafe to


excessively conservative.

87. Adam Lubell 197 18 9.6.3.1 requires that Av,min is provided if New business.
Vu>Phi*1.0*root(fc’)*bw*d except for specific exemptions in
Table 9.6.3.1 in which case a limit of Vu>Phi*Vc applies. As one
example, Vu > Phi*Vc applies for beams built integrally with
slabs if h<24 inches. Laboratory tests for thicker beams with
low amounts of high-strength longitudinal reinforcement have
shown that these can fail at low shear stress that could be
below Phi*Vc. For example, refer to tests by Desalegne and
Lubell (ACI Structural, 2010) and Collins and Kuchma (ACI
Structural 1999).

It is recommended that 2 changes to 9.6.3.1 be implemented:


(1) Change the basic check of Vu >
Phi*1.0*root(fc’)*bw*d to be Vu > Phi*0.5*Vc
where Vc is calculated in accordance with 22.5.5.1. A

44 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
designer needs to complete all of the 22.5.5.1 calcs as
part of the overall design so this change does not add
significant complexity and provides appropriate and
more consistent safety for taller beams with low
reinforcement ratios. This also keeps the check
consistent with wording in 9.6.3.2.
(2) Restrict the “Integral slab” limit in Table 9.6.3.1 to
cases where fy < 60 ksi until sufficient test data is
available to relax this. By doing so, a designer
considering use of fy>60 would evaluate the
recommended 0.5*Phi*Vc limit that would consider
both size and reinforcement ratio influences.
88. Dan Mullins 197 20 Only the exceptions are listed as cases where Av min is Disagree.
required if Vu>phiVc. Another case is where low rho and large
d lead to a low value of Vc, which can be less than the limit in The restriction to 1 sqrtf’c is sufficient to address this case.
line 19. Does this need to be explicitly stated?
No change needed.
89. David Darwin 197 22 Table 9.6.3.1: For steel fiber-reinforced concrete, the cited Agree.
sections 26.4.2.2(d) and 26.12.5.1(a) should be changed to Change made.
26.4.2.2(i) and 26.12.7.1(a), respectively because of changes in
section numbering.

90. Dan Mullins 199 12 Suggested rewording: “Along development and lap splice Agree.
lengths of longitudinal bars with fy>80,000 psi, transverse
reinforcement shall be provided such that Ktr shall not be Change made.
smaller than 0.5 db”
91. Andrew Stam 205 21 It seems inconsistent to me that deep beams, a vast majority of Disagree.
which are designed by STM, are subject to a shear stress limit
(Eq. 9.9.2.1), while other discontinuity regions (brackets, for Discontinuity regions designed by the strut and tie method have
example) are not, provided they rely on transverse additional restrictions on the compressive strut (including
reinforcement meeting the requirements of Section 23.5. possible shear limits) as noted in the new sections 23.4.3 and
Slender beams are also subject to a similar limit. 23.4.4. Brackets and corbels designed by section 16.5 have their
own unique design checks (including shear).

45 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Would it not be prudent (not to mention consistent) to require No change needed.
that all strut-and-tie models, including non-deep beams that
rely on transverse reinforcement, be checked for shear stress
via Eq. 9.9.2.1 or something similar? The reasons given for the
deep beam stress limit (crack control, preventing diagonal
compression failure) are still valid concerns for other
reinforced discontinuity regions.
92. David Darwin 213 27 26.4.2.2(d) should be changed to 26.4.2.2(i) because of changes Agree.
in section numbering.
Revised cross reference as noted.
93. Ing. Hugo Juan 219 10 Reason for addition: It is necessary to indicate a calculation Disagree.
Donini equation for the additional stirrups and the area in which should
be arranged. Committee 318 discussed various ways to design the hanger
reinforcement and voted to leave the design method to the LDP.
R 9.7.6.2. Shear The proposed addition is overly prescriptive.
R 9.7.6.2.1. If a reinforced concrete beam is cast monolithically
with a supporting beam and intersects one or both sides faces No change needed.
of a supporting beam may be subject to premature failure unless
additional transverse reinforcement, commonly referred to as
hanger reinforcement, is provided (Mattock and Shen, 1992).
The hanger reinforcement (Figure 9.7.6), placed en addition to
other transverse reinforcement, is provided to transfer shear
from the end of the supported beam. Research indicates that if
the bottom of the supported beam is at or above middepth of
the supported beam or if the factored shear transferred from
the supported beam is less than 3f’cbwd, hanger reinforcement
is not needed.
The area of hanger reinforcement, Ai, should be determined
from Ai  (1-hb/hg).Vu/(.fy), where Vu is the beam factored shear
at the supported face; Ai is the total area of the hanger stirrups;
hg is the girder height; fyt is the stirrup specified yield strength;
and  = 0,75.

46 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
At least two-thirds of Ai should be evenly distributed within the
supported beam width bw, plus hb at each side. The remaining
area of hanger stirrups, not more than one-third of Ai, should be
evenly distributed within d/4 from the supporting girder face,
where d is the supported beam effective depth. Beam bottom
longitudinal bars should be placed above the girder bottom
longitudinal bars.
94. Dan Mullins 231 21 Suggested rewording: “Along development and lap splice Agree.
lengths of longitudinal bars with fy>80,000 psi, transverse
reinforcement shall be provided such that Ktr shall not be Change made.
smaller than 0.5 db”
95. ACI Staff 243 2 The reference to 11.5.4.3 is not correct. This appears to be a Disagree.
remnant of an errata correction from 318-14 and the new
change proposal CE070. Please provide the correct reference. This comment refers to 11.6.2(a) on page 248, line 2. The
reference is correct. The wording, however, should be slightly
adjusted:

Change to:
“… t required for strength in 11.5.4.3.”
96. Dan Mullins 245 23 This section seems in conflict with new section 11.5.4.5. Does Agree.
11.5.4.5 take precedent over 11.5.4.2. If so, this needs to be
stated. 11.5.4.1 doesn’t appear to give that flexibility.
The upper limit of 10 fc Acv for an individual vertical wall
segment in 11.5.4.5 directly contradicts the limit of 8 fc Acv for
any horizontal section in 11.5.4.2. After review, 11.5.4.5 is not
needed in Chapter 11. The limit in 11.5.4.2 is sufficient.

Recommended Changes:

• Delete 11.5.4.5
• Delete R11.5.4.5
• Editorial change to 11.5.4.1 to reflect the deletion of a
subsection.
47 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

11.5.4.1 Vn shall be calculated in accordance with 11.5.4.2


through 11.5.4.5 11.5.4.4.

97. Ing. Hugo Juan 248 16 Reason for change: in case of more demanding exposure Existing code provisions have been shown to provide adequate
Donini categories (F2, F3, S2, S3, W2, C1 and C2), it is suggested to durability.
reduce maximum spacing s of deformed longitudinal
reinforcement in order to verify the most demanding cracking No change needed.
criteria.

11.7.2.1.1 — Spacing, s, of longitudinal bars in cast-in-place


walls shall not exceed the lesser of 3h and 18 in. If shear
reinforcement is required for in-plane strength, spacing of
longitudinal reinforcement shall not exceed lw / 3.

11.7.2.1.2 — In cast-in-place walls exposed to exposure


categories F2, F3, S2, S3, W2, C1 and C2, the maximum spacing
s of longitudinal bars must be less or equal to that shown in
Figure 11.7.2.1.2. The values are plotted as a function of the
minimum concrete cover dc to centroid of steel at the tensile
face for plates with different supports, uniform loads and l min /
lmax ratios of 0.5, 0.7 and 1.0.

48 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Variation of the maximum spacing s of deformed longitudinal reinforcement in two-way slabs and
Name walls
12.00 in

11.00 in lmin/lmax = 0,5

10.00 in

9.00 in lmin/lmax = 0,7

Maximum spacing (s)


8.00 in

lmin/lmax = 1
7.00 in

6.00 in

5.00 in

4.00 in

3.00 in

2.00 in
1.70 in 1.80 in 1.90 in 2.00 in 2.10 in 2.20 in 2.30 in 2.40 in 2.50 in 2.60 in 2.70 in 2.80 in
Minimum concrete cover to centroid of steel at the tensile face (d c)

Figure 11.7.2.1.2 — Variation of the maximum spacing s of


deformed longitudinal reinforcement in
cast-in-place walls with uniform loads
(exposure categories F2, F3, S2, S3, W2,
C1 y C2)

98. James Lintz 248 42 Through line 43 See changes proposed in response to Viral Patel (Comment 99,
page 248, line 42).
ACI 318-19 Section 11.7.4.1
The 1% limit on longitudinal reinforcement has been in the Code
“If longitudinal reinforcement is required for axial strength” is
for more than 30 years. No evidence has been presented that
unclear. Does this mean that if the axial load, Pu , exceeds the
this needs to be changed for 318-19.
axial strength for a plain concrete member, φPn , with Pn given
by equation 14.5.3.1 that the member needs transverse ties.
Or does this mean that if the axial load, Pu , exceeds the axial
strength for a plain concrete member, φPn , with Pn given by
equation 14.5.4.2 that the member needs transverse ties. Or
does it mean something else entirely. In any case I believe an
explanation should at least be given in the commentary if this
wording is to remain. Further, the wording of this section was
49 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
changed from the wording in the equivalent section of ACI 318-
11, Section 14.3.6, and no explanation was given in ACI 318-14.
I believe an explanation for this change should be given in the
commentary if the wording of this section is to remain the
same.

If one of the explanations above is correct, and transverse ties


are required whenever Pu exceeds φPn based on plain concrete
design, then this creates an issue where (1 - lc/32h) will be
negative for nearly all slender concrete walls, which would
therefore require nearly all slender concrete walls to have
transverse ties. This would seem to contradict my
understanding of the testing that was done to provide the
underpinning for the Alternative method for out-of-plane
slender wall analysis since the tested walls did not include
transverse ties around all of the bars, and no mention of
transverse ties being required is given in Section 11.8. It would
also contradict decades of design practice where slender walls
have been designed and built successfully without transverse
ties.

Why is the maximum amount of longitudinal steel allowed


without transverse ties set to 1% of the gross concrete area?
This number appears to be arbitrary, especially since no
explanation is given in the commentary. Why not 1.5% or 2%?
Why should the Ast/Ag ratio even be used to determine when
transverse ties are required? The beam chapter of ACI 318-14
Section 9.5.2 requires transverse ties for axial load when
Pu>0.1fc’Ag. Basing the requirement for transverse ties on the
amount of axial load in the member, as is done in the beam

50 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
chapter, would seem more logical than basing it on the Ast/Ag
ratio. If the ACI wanted to be more conservative for walls than
for beams, the axial load required could be lowered to 0.06f c’Ag
to match Section 11.8.1.1(d).

Since one of the main reasons to include transverse ties is to


prevent buckling of the longitudinal bars in compression, a
requirement for ties based on longitudinal bars being in
compression would be logical. I believe this requirement
should be that if the distance from the extreme compression
fiber to the neutral axis is greater than the distance from the
extreme compression fiber to the inner most part of the steel
nearest the compressive face of the wall then transverse ties
should be required.

To conclude I believe ACI 318-19 Section 11.7.4.1 should be


revised to read as follows;

Longitudinal bars shall be laterally supported by transverse ties


if Pu ≥ 0.10fc’Ag or if c ≥ d’ + db/2.

99. Viral Patel 248 42 ACI 318-14 and 318 Public discussion draft section 11.7.4.1 Agree.
indicates that “If longitudinal reinforcement is required for
axial strength or if Ast exceeds 0.01Ag, longitudinal Change made.
reinforcement shall be laterally supported by transverse ties.”

This provision was modified in ACI318-14 from ACI318-11. ACI


318-11 provision 14.3.6 indicates that “Vertical reinforcement
need not be enclosed by transverse ties if vertical
reinforcement area is not greater than 0.01 times gross
concrete area, or where vertical reinforcement is not required
as compression reinforcement.”
51 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

For non-seismic application, when reinforcement in wall is


needed for tension, it should not require transverse
reinforcement in form of ties regardless of amount of
reinforcement. It is very common to use higher than 1%
longitudinal reinforcement for tension resulting from moment.
Such reinforcement (when not used for compressive strength)
does not need lateral support and transverse reinforcement is
not needed in form of ties. Providing transverse reinforcement
in such situation will not improve the performance and could
add significant material and labor cost without adding value.

Note that there are methods (also commercial software) that


will allow use of reinforcement only for tension. Therefore,
designers can ascertain if reinforcement is needed for
compressive strength or not.

Additional information: ACI staff should investigate why this


provision was changed from 318-11 to 318-14. It is possible
that it was an oversight. At least preliminary investigation does
not support any reason for the change.

Proposed change:

11.7.4.1 - If longitudinal reinforcement is required for axial


strength compression or and if Ast exceeds 0.01Ag, longitudinal
reinforcement shall be laterally supported by transverse ties.

100. Robert Sculthorpe 251 11 Through line 13: Agree.


Chairman ACI ACI 560 Committee agreed on the following revised language:
Committee 560 ”R11.1.6 Specific design recommendations for cast-in-place Change made.
walls constructed with insulating concrete forms are not
provided in this code. Guidance on the design of cast-in-place

52 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
walls constructed with insulating concrete forms can be found
in PCA 100 and background information on their use in ACI
560R. Guidance can be found in ACI 560R and PCA100.”
101. Restrepo J.I. and 252 13 This line should read Agree.
Rodriguez M.E. “…shear walls structural walls”
See reason given in comment on page 97, line 8. Change made.
Note: Restrepo and Rodriguez proposed similar changes in
several places in 318. The proposed responses have been
coordinated for consistency to accept the change to “structural
walls”

102. Dan Mullins 256 20 This line seems more appropriate as 12.2.1 (f) Disagree.
Items 12.2.1 (a) through (e) are forces. Section 12.2.2 addresses
the effects of slab openings, which includes not only forces but
also other influences of openings, so it would not be appropriate
to add 12.2.2 to the list of forces in 12.2.1
No change.

103. David P. Gustafson 258 25 Through line 26: Partially agree.


Re-evaluate Lines 25-26. Rho-sub-tee is a ratio. Make the following change in line 25: “…and rho-t is refers to the
“ . . .shall not exceed 100 psi; and ρt is the ratio of distributed distributed…”
reinforcement oriented parallel to the in-plane shear to gross
concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement.”
In 2.2, rho-sub-tee is defined as:
ρt = ratio of area of distributed transverse reinforcement to gross
concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement
104. David P. Gustafson 268 31 Consider replacing “seismic design requirements” with Partially agree. Delete the words “seismic design” from line 31 of
“requirements for earthquake-resistant design”. page 268
105. David P. Gustafson 269 2 Consider replacing “seismic” with “earthquake-resistant”. Partially agree. Delete the words “seismic design” from line 2 of
page 269
106. Dale C. Biggers, 270 26 There are confusing words re: steel casings and their On line 27, “Steel pile shells are” will be revised to “Steel pile
P.E. contributions to capacity. casing is”.

53 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Revise to:
R13.4.2.3 The basis for this allowable strength is the added
strength provided to the concrete by the confining action of the
steel casing. This strength applies only to non-axial load-bearing
steel where the stress in the steel is taken in hoop tension instead
of axial compression. Steel pile shells are casing is not to be
considered in the design of the pile to carry a portion of the pile
axial load.
Potential corrosion of the metal casing should be considered;
provision is based on a non-corrosive environment.

107. Thomas Schaeffer 274 19 1.4.6 should be 1.4.7 Agree.

Revise to:
13.1.2 Foundations excluded by 1.4.67 are excluded from this
chapter.
108. David L. Hartmann 274 19 1.4.6 should be 1.4.7 Agree.

Revise to:
13.1.2 Foundations excluded by 1.4.67 are excluded from this
chapter.
109. David L. Hartmann 275 23 “. . . induced reactions.” Should read “. . . induced reactions Agree.
except as permitted by 13.4.2.” It will be revised to:
13.2.6.3 Foundation members shall be designed to resist factored
loads and corresponding induced reactions except as permitted
by 13.4.2.
110. ACI Staff 279 12 Via member Schaeffer. Please verify the language “authority Agree. Change will be made to be consistent with other
having jurisdiction”. This was changed in several other provisions.
locations in the code, should this be changed as well?
The Code will be revised to:
13.4.1.1 Number and arrangement of deep foundation members
shall be determined such that forces and moments applied to the
foundation do not exceed the permissible deep foundation
strength. Permissible deep foundation strength shall be
54 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
determined through principles of soil or rock mechanics in
accordance with the general building code, or other requirements
as determined by the authority having jurisdiction building
official.
111. Dale C. Biggers, 279 23 Limits unnecessarily allowable stress design – remove. Disagree, the 5 percent eccentricity is supported by ACI 543 -
P.E. GUIDE TO DESIGN, MANUFACTURE, AND INSTALLATION OF
CONCRETE PILES.

No change required.
112. Daniel S. 279 23 Code language states that allowable stress design can be used Agree regarding substitution for “pile” to member.
Stevenson, P.E. only when bending moments are less than that moment
Representing DFI caused by an eccentricity of 5% of the pile diameter or width. The Code will be revised to:
Codes and The word “pile” should be replaced by “deep foundation 13.4.2.1 It shall be permitted to design a deep foundation
Standards member”. The 5% limit is very restrictive. IBC 2018 section member using load combinations for allowable stress design in
Committee 1810.3.1.3 states that deep foundations be designed for ASCE/SEI 7, Section 2.4, and the allowable strength specified in
mislocations (eccentricity) of at least 3”. Taken together, this Table 13.4.2.1 if (a) and (b) are satisfied:
will prohibit the allowable strength design of any single [CF005]
element deep foundation member (e.g. drilled piers) with a (a) The deep foundation member is laterally supported for
diameter of 60” or less. Current IBC code language contains a its entire height.
similar restriction, but uses the term “accidental eccentricities” (b) The applied forces cause bending moments in the deep
instead of a specific limit. The IBC terminology prevents the foundation member less than the moment due to an
use of ASD except when there are no applied design moments accidental eccentricity of 5 percent of the pile member
(typically from applied lateral loads or fixed base columns). diameter or width.

Disagree regarding the 5 percent eccentricity, this is supported by


ACI 543 - GUIDE TO DESIGN, MANUFACTURE, AND INSTALLATION
OF CONCRETE PILES; and the Mislocation check of 1810.3.1.3 is a
separate check with a permissible overload of 110 percent of the
allowable.

For reference, IBC 1810.3.1.3 states:


1810.3.1.3 Mislocation. The foundation or superstructure

55 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
shall be designed to resist the effect of the mislocation of any
deep foundation element by not less than 3 inches (76 mm). To
resist the effects of mislocation,
compressive overload of deep foundation elements to 110
percent of the allowable design load shall be permitted.

No change required.
113. Thomas Schaeffer 279 26 In the Table, the word “rock” in the second row under the Agree.
heading appears to be in the wrong place because it doesn’t
make sense as it is written. It should be reworded to say “Cast- Revise the wording in the Third Row of the Table to:
in-place concrete pile in rock, a pipe, tube, or other permanent
casing that does not satisfy 13.4.2.3” Cast-in-place concrete pile in rock or within, a pipe, tube, or other
permanent metal casing or rock that does not satisfy 13.4.2.3.

114. Daniel S. 279 26 Is it the intention that section 13.4 will apply to structural steel Micropiles are currently not included in the 318-19 Code
Stevenson, P.E. pipes and tubes filled with concrete and micropiles? Current provisions, and the term Micropile does not occur in the Code.
Representing DFI proposed code language appears to apply to structural steel The Code does include provisions for pile that consists of cast-in-
Codes and members filled with concrete, as stress levels are given for place concrete in a steel pipe or metal casing. Also, the reference
Standards “Cast-in-place concrete pile in a pipe, tube… There is also a to AISC 360 is given in R10.1.1 for composite columns which,
Committee definition given for “concrete filled pipe piles”, that would where applicable, can be used for concrete filled steel pipe piles.
make it appear that ACI 318 will apply to the design of these
members. Consider deferring to the general building code Concrete filled pipe piles with a contribution from the steel pipe
(IBC) and AISC 360 for these deep foundation types. Concrete will be considered for New Business in the next Code cycle.
filled structural steel pipe columns, which are similar members,
are not covered by ACI 318-19 (see section R10.1.1). If it is not Revise Commentary to:
the intent of ACI that this section should apply to concrete
filled structural steel sections and/or micropiles, this should be R1.4.7 The design and installation of concrete piles fully
specifically stated in the commentary. embedded in the ground is regulated by the general building code.
The 2019 edition of the Code contains some provisions that
previously were only available in the general building code. In
addition to the provisions in this Code, recommendations for
concrete piles are given in ACI 543R, recommendations for drilled
piers are given in ACI 336.3R, and recommendations for precast
prestressed concrete piles are given in “Recommended Practice for
56 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Design, Manufacture, and Installation of Prestressed Concrete
Piling” (PCI 1993). Requirements for the design and construction
of micropiles are not specifically addressed by this Code.

115. Daniel S. 279 26 The footnote [2] given to allowable stress category (b) in the In Table 13.4.2.1, the member type associated with the equation
Stevenson, P.E. table states that the strength of steel casing, pipe, or tube shall that has the footnote [2] is being revised to:
Representing DFI not be included in the design. This is a major departure from Cast-in-place concrete pile in rock or within, a pipe, tube, or other
Codes and current code and practice and will result in significant permanent metal casing or rock that does not satisfy 13.4.2.3.
Standards increased construction costs. Current IBC code requires that
Committee the casing not be considered for axial load only for metal cased In this case, as stated, the pipe is only serving as permanent
concrete piles (13.4.2.3). For micropiles and concrete filled casing, and the provision is not intended to include compositely
structural steel members, IBC permits the steel to be designed concrete and steel pipe.
considered as part of the capacity. Consider removing this
footnote from stress category (b) and applying it instead to Concrete filled pipe piles with a contribution from the steel pipe
stress category (c), the latter which pertains to metal cased will be considered for New Business in the next Code cycle.
concrete piles. Leaving this note on (b) would in practicality
eliminate the use of concrete filled structural steel piles, as In the case cited where the concrete filled structural steel pipe
these foundation members usually derive most of their pile derives most of its capacity from the structural steel, the
capacity from the structural steel. There are no provisions in designer could utilize AISC specifications for the design of that
ACI 318 for the strength design of concrete filled steel pipes pile.
and tubes. R10.1.1 refers to AISC 360 for concrete filled pipes
and tubes. As AISC 360 already contains design provisions for Sentence will be added to commentary clarifying composite
concrete filled steel pipes and tubes, it would be more action in concrete filled steel pipe piles.
appropriate for ACI 318 to defer to ASCE 360 for the design of
these members rather than to duplicate these provisions. Revise to:
R13.4.2.3 The basis for this allowable strength is the added
strength provided to the concrete by the confining action of the
steel casing. This strength applies only to non-axial load-bearing
steel where the stress in the steel is taken in hoop tension instead
of axial compression. In this Code steel pile shells are not to be
considered in the design of the pile to carry a portion of the pile

57 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
axial load. Provisions for members designed to be composite with
steel pipe or casing are covered in AISC 360.
Potential corrosion of the metal casing should be considered;
provision is based on a non-corrosive environment.

116. Daniel S. 280 6 “If 13.4.2.1 (a) and (b) are not satisfied…” should be “If 13.4.2.1 Agree.
Stevenson, P.E. (a) or (b) is not satisfied…”, as both (a) and (b) need to be
Representing DFI satisfied to use the allowable stress design provisions. If either Provision will be revised to:
Codes and is not satisfied, strength design shall be used. 13.4.2.2 If 13.4.2.1 (a) and or 13.4.2.1(b) are is not satisfied, a
Standards deep foundation member shall be designed using strength design
Committee in accordance with 13.4.3.
117. Dale C. Biggers, 280 13 These comments apply only to “Raymond” mandrel-driven Data supporting that there is an adequate amount of
P.E. corrugated shell piles which have disappeared altogether. We confinement for metal cased cast-in-place concrete deep
drove our last corrugated-shell pile in 1988. They were foundation members with a diameter greater than 16-in. has not
generally 16-in diameter or smaller. Why limit pipe piles to that been made available to the committee. The maximum diameter
diameter ? Also the corrugated casing had no axial strength; of 16-in. has been in the general building code for some time and
it was only for confinement. Do not limit the axial capacity of is current accepted practice. Since, as the commenter noted, this
pipe – it has axial strength. type of pile is not very common at the present, it is not
considered worthwhile to study larger diameter piles of this type
as New Business.

No change required.
118. Daniel S. 280 13 Why must the element be mandrel driven? Would not the This provision is almost verbatim to a provision contained in the
Stevenson, P.E. same allowable stress level apply if alternate installation current edition of the IBC. The intent of adding these new
Representing DFI methods, such as drilling, are used? provisions was so that IBC can remove the concrete related pile
Codes and provisions and reference ACI 318.
Standards If this type of pile is no longer being installed, the next Code cycle
Committee may consider removing the provision.

No change required.
119. Daniel S. 280 24 Note IBC section 1810.3.2.8 allows for increased allowable Currently 13.4.2.4 states that the use of higher allowable
Stevenson, P.E. stress, but also requires a geotechnical investigation and that strengths is allowed if accepted by the building official and
58 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Representing DFI the deep foundation members be installed under the direct justified with load tests. IBC 1810.3.2.8 states that it is allowed
Codes and supervision of a registered design professional. The ACI where supporting data is filed with the building official and the
Standards provisions for increasing allowable stress do not contain these supporting data shall include a geotechnical investigation and
Committee extra provisions currently contained in IBC. load tests. The Commentary will be revised to include
Geotechnical requirements.
There are no conflicts with IBC regarding inspection, 26.13.1.1
states that concrete construction shall be inspected as required
by the general building code, and as a minimum with 26.13.
26.13.1.2 states that inspection of concrete construction shall be
conducted by the licensed design professional responsible for the
design…..; so the inspection aspects are currently covered.

Revise Commentary to:

R13.4.2.4 Geotechnical and Lload test requirements for deep


foundation members can be found in the IBC.

120. Daniel S. 281 2 Through line 24: Agree. Lines 2 through 24, p. 281 are misplaced. They are part of
Stevenson, P.E. Sections 13.4.2.5 to 13.4.2.7 are concerned with the design of the Pile Cap provisions which are in 13.4.6. All lines shall move to
Representing DFI pile caps, which must be designed using strength design 13.4.6 at the end of the Chapter, thereby making what is shown
Codes and provisions. However, the title of section 13.4.2 is “Allowable on page 281 as 13.4.2.5 to 13.4.6.3, 13.4.2.6 to 13.4.6.4, and
Standards Axial Strength”. We suggest that the code sections in 13.4.2 13.4.2.7 to 13.4.6.5
Committee that pertain to pile caps be moved to section 13.4.5 “Pile
Caps”. Delete 13.4.2.5 through 13.4.2.7:
13.4.2.5 Except for pile caps designed in accordance with
13.2.6.3, the pile cap shall be designed such that (a) is satisfied for
one-way foundations and (a) and (b) are satisfied for two-way
foundations.

(a) ϕVn ≥ Vu, where Vn shall be calculated in accordance with 22.5


for one-way shear, Vu shall be calculated in accordance with
13.4.2.7, and ϕ shall be in accordance with 21.2

59 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
(b) ϕvn ≥ vu, where vn shall be calculated in accordance with 22.6
for two-way shear, vu shall be calculated in accordance with
13.4.2.7, and ϕ shall be in accordance with 21.2

13.4.2.6 If the pile cap is designed in accordance with the strut-


and-tie method as permitted in 13.2.6.3, the effective concrete
compressive strength of the struts, fce, shall be calculated in
accordance with 23.4.3, where βs = 0.60λ, and λ is in accordance
with 19.2.4.

13.4.2.7 Calculation of factored shear on any section through a pile


cap shall be in accordance with (a) through (c):

(a) Entire reaction from any pile with its center located dpile/2 or
more outside the section shall be considered as producing shear on
that section.
(b) Reaction from any pile with its center located dpile/2 or more
inside the section shall be considered as producing no shear on that
section.
(c) For intermediate positions of pile center, the portion of the pile
reaction to be considered as producing shear on the section shall be
based on a linear interpolation between full value at dpile/2 outside
the section and zero value at dpile/2 inside the section.
Move the deleted sections to the section for Pile Caps, 13.4.6, and
renumber:

13.4.26 Pile caps


13.4.26.1 Overall depth of pile cap shall be selected such that the
effective depth of bottom reinforcement is at least 12 in.
13.4.26.2 Factored moments and shears shall be permitted to be
calculated with the reaction from any pile assumed to be
concentrated at the centroid of the pile section
13.4.2.56.3 Except for pile caps designed in accordance with
13.2.6.3, the pile cap shall be designed such that (a) is satisfied for

60 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
one-way foundations and (a) and (b) are satisfied for two-way
foundations.
(a) ϕVn ≥ Vu, where Vn shall be calculated in accordance with 22.5
for one-way shear, Vu shall be calculated in accordance with
13.4.2.7, and ϕ shall be in accordance with 21.2
(b) ϕvn ≥ vu, where vn shall be calculated in accordance with 22.6
for two-way shear, vu shall be calculated in accordance with
13.4.2.7, and ϕ shall be in accordance with 21.2
13.4.2.66.4 If the pile cap is designed in accordance with the
strut-and-tie method as permitted in 13.2.6.3, the effective concrete
compressive strength of the struts, fce, shall be calculated in
accordance with 23.4.3, where βs = 0.60λ, and λ is in accordance
with 19.2.4.
13.4.2.76.5 Calculation of factored shear on any section through a
pile cap shall be in accordance with (a) through (c):
(a) Entire reaction from any pile with its center located dpile/2 or
more outside the section shall be considered as producing shear on
that section.
(b) Reaction from any pile with its center located dpile/2 or more
inside the section shall be considered as producing no shear on that
section.
(c) For intermediate positions of pile center, the portion of the pile
reaction to be considered as producing shear on the section shall be
based on a linear interpolation between full value at dpile/2 outside
the section and zero value at dpile/2 inside the section.

121. Thomas Schaeffer 281 2 Lines 2 through 24 are misplaced. They are part of the Pile Cap Agree. All lines shall move to 13.4.6 at the end of the Chapter,
provisions which are in 13.4.6. All lines should move, thereby thereby making what is shown on page 281 as 13.4.2.5 to
making what is shown as 13.4.2.5 to 13.4.6.3, 13.4.2.6 to 13.4.6.3, 13.4.2.6 to 13.4.6.4, and 13.4.2.7 to 13.4.6.5
13.4.6.4, and 13.4.2.7 to 13.4.6.5
122. Thomas Schaeffer 281 2 The reference to section 13.2.6.3 should be 13.2.6.5 Agree.
It will be revised to:

13.4.2.56.3 Except for pile caps designed in accordance with


13.2.6.35, the pile cap shall be designed such that (a) is satisfied
61 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
for one-way foundations and (a) and (b) are satisfied for two-way
foundations.
123. Daniel S. 281 2 Reference to 13.2.6.3 should be 13.2.6.5. Agree.
Stevenson, P.E.
Representing DFI
Codes and
Standards
Committee
124. David L. Hartmann 281 2 Reference to 13.2.6.2 does not appear to make sense should it Agree, the reference to section 13.2.6.3 should be 13.2.6.5
be 13.4.2?
125. Thomas Schaeffer 281 12 The reference to section 13.2.6.3 should be 13.2.6.5 Agree
126. Dale E. Biggers P.E. 281 30 Some non-prestressed members do not have ties for their full Provision 13.4.3.2 states that the provisions of 22.4.2.4 and
length, which is okay. This needs to be addressed. 22.4.2.5 shall not apply to deep foundation members. Tie
requirements for these members are in 18.13.5.7.

No change required.
127. Daniel S. 281 30 Code language in 13.4.3.2 states that concrete deep The tie requirements for deep foundation members are in
Stevenson, P.E. foundation members shall be designed in accordance with 18.13.5. Provision 13.2.3.2 states that deep foundation members
Representing DFI 10.5. Section 10.5 refers to table 22.4.2.1 for maximum axial in SDC C, D, E, or F shall be designed in accordance with 18.13.
Codes and strength for compression members. This table provides for And, according to 1.4.7(c), the Code only applies to cast-in-place
Standards allowable strengths for deep foundation members, and also concrete deep foundation members assigned to SDC C, D, E, and
Committee stipulates that ties must conform to chapter 13. However, F.
chapter 13 does not contain any tie requirements for deep The requirements for precast piles in SDC A and B are in 13.4.5.
foundation members. What about deep foundation members, Cast-in-place concrete deep foundation elements in SDC A and B
or portions of deep foundation members, that do not contain will be considered for New Business in the next Code cycle.
any ties? It is very common that only the upper portions of
deep foundation members are reinforced. The unreinforced No change required.
portions will not have any ties for confinement but may be
confined by the surrounding soils.
128. Dan Mullins 281 30 Based on the logic in this paragraph, the capacity of a deep The committee recognizes the possible inconsistency in the phi
foundation will increase if a nominal moment is applied, as the factor for columns and deep foundation members and this will be
phi-factor for axial will increase from 0.55 to 0.65. This doesn’t handled as New Business for the next Code cycle.
seem like the intent.

62 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
129. David L. Hartmann 281 31 Add the word compressive to “using the (compressive) Agree.
strength reduction factor . . .” to be consistent. The word compressive will be added. The revised provision will
be:
13.4.3.2 The strength design of deep foundation members shall
be in accordance with 10.5 using the compressive strength
reduction factors of Table 13.4.3.2 for axial load without
moment, and the strength reduction factors of Table 21.2.1 for
tension, shear, and combined axial force and moment. The
provisions of 22.4.2.4 and 22.4.2.5 shall not apply to deep
foundations.
130. David L. Hartmann 281 33 In section 13.4.3.2 the last sentence “The provisions of 22.4.2.4 According to 1.4.7(c), the Code only applies to cast-in-place
and 22.4.2.5 shall not apply to deep foundations.” appears to concrete deep foundation elements assigned to SDC C, D, E, and
create a gap in the provisions. It could be argued that omitting F, and currently doesn’t include A and B for cast-in-place concrete
those sections and by extension the sections they reference, deep foundations.
you do not need ties in cast in place deep foundations (seismic Cast-in-place concrete deep foundation elements in SDC A and B
provisions not withstanding). The current provision does give will be considered for New Business in the next Code cycle.
necessary detailing relief; especially from 25.7.2.4.1 which
would be a constructability disaster. I would suggest that No change required.
deleting the noted sentence and adding a Section 13.4.4.3
“Ties for cast in place concrete deep foundations assigned to
SDC A & B shall satisfy the requirements of 25.7.2.1 and
25.7.2.2, 25.7.3, or other means demonstrated to provide
acceptable support to the longitudinal reinforcement. Ties for
cast in place deep foundations assigned to SDC C, D, E, or F
shall satisfy 18.13.5.” This would also clear up a somewhat
awkward reference in Table 22.4.2.1 (e).

131. Thomas Schaeffer 282 1 In the Table, the word “rock” in the second row under the Agree.
heading appears to be in the wrong place because it doesn’t
make sense as it is written. It should be reworded to say “Cast- Revise the 1st column, 3rd row in Table 13.4.3.2 to: Cast-in-place
in-place concrete pile in rock, a pipe, tube, or other permanent concrete pile in rock or within a pipe, tube, or other permanent
casing that does not satisfy 13.4.2.3” metal casing or rock that does not satisfy 13.4.2.3.

63 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
132. Daniel S. 282 1 Table 13.4.3.2 gives phi factors for concrete filled pipes, but Agree.
Stevenson, P.E. how does one design in ACI 318? R10.1.1 states that See response to Dolan #115.
Representing DFI composite structural steel-concrete columns are not covered in
Codes and ACI. Is the contribution of the structural steel supposed to be
Standards neglected? We suggest the design of composite structural
Committee steel-concrete members be delegated to AISC 360.
133. Dan Mullins 282 1 Its not clear what the soil conditions noted in the footnote Disagree. The soil conditions can affect the quality of the
have to do with the phi-factor for the strength of the concrete concrete in the member. The phi factors in the Table are
element. The phi-factor should be based on the concrete only. consistent with the recommended values in ACI 543.
The phi-factor values seem low and cause problems with The continuity issue with the phi factors for combined axial force
continuity with section 21.2.1 and moment will be considered for New Business in the next
Code cycle.

No change required.
134. David L. Hartmann 282 1 For (b) “. . . other permanent casing or rock that does not . . .” Agree. Same response as Wood #131
words “or rock” should be removed.
Revise the 1st column, 3rd row in Table 13.4.3.2 to : Cast-in-place
concrete pile in rock or within a pipe, tube, or other permanent
metal casing or rock that does not satisfy 13.4.2.3.

135. Thomas Schaeffer 284 3 Table 13.4.4.6(b) should be Table 13.4.5.6(b) Agree.
It will be revised to:
Table 13.4.4.613.4.5.6(b) Maximum transverse reinforcement
spacing
136. David L. Hartmann 284 3 Should read Table 13.4.5.6 (b) Agree
137. David L. Hartmann 284 5 Through line 9: Agree, 13.4.2 should be 13.4.6.
Section numbers of 13.4.2 are incorrect. 13.4.6? It will be revised to:
13.4.26 Pile caps
13.4.26.1 Overall depth of pile cap shall be selected such that the
effective depth of bottom reinforcement is at least 12 in.
13.4.26.2 Factored moments and shears shall be permitted to be
calculated with the reaction from any pile assumed to be
concentrated at the centroid of the pile section.

64 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
138. Thomas Schaeffer 284 5 13.4.2 should be 13.4.6 Agree. Change made.
139. Daniel S. 284 5 Section 13.4.2 (which follows 13.4.5.6) should be re-numbered Agree, but 13.4.2 should be 13.4.6
Stevenson, P.E. 13.4.5, and following sections also renumbered.
Representing DFI
Codes and
Standards
Committee
140. Dan Mullins 284 5 Section needs to be renumbered? 13.4.6? Agree, 13.4.2 should be 13.4.6
141. Thomas Schaeffer 284 6 13.4.2.1 should be 13.4.6.1 Agree. Change made.
142. Thomas Schaeffer 284 8 13.4.2.2 should be 13.4.6.2 Agree. Change made.
143. Thomas Schaeffer 286 30 Section number R13.2.6.2 should be R13.2.6.3 Agree.
It will be revised to:
R13.2.6.23To design a footing or pile cap for strength, the
induced reactions due to factored……….
144. Dan Mullins 286 30 Section R13.2.6.2 isn’t commentary on the same numbered Agree, Section number R13.2.6.2 should be R13.2.6.3
code section. Need to move this commentary to a different
section and provide proper commentary on Code 13.2.6.2
145. David L. Hartmann 286 30 R13.2.6.2 text does not apply to section. Might work for Agree, Section number R13.2.6.2 should be R13.2.6.3
13.2.6.3
146. Thomas Schaeffer 287 13 Section number R13.2.6.3 should be R13.2.6.4 Agree.
It will be revised to:
R13.2.6.34 Foundation design is permitted to be based directly
on fundamental principles of…………..
147. Thomas Schaeffer 287 20 Section number R13.2.6.4 should be R13.2.6.5 Agree.
It will be revised to:
R13.2.6.46.5 An example of the application of this provision is a
pile cap supported on piles, similar to that
148. David L. Hartmann 288 4 Through line 8: Agree, lines 4-8 are repeated from Page 287, lines 25-29; and
Repeat of Page 287 Lines 25-29. should be deleted
149. Thomas Schaeffer 288 4 Lines 4-8 are repeated from Page 287, lines 25-29; and should Agree. Change made.
be deleted.

65 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
150. Dan Mullins 288 4 Figure referenced should be renamed Fig R13.2.6.5 to align Agree, the Figure number on page 293 should be revised from
with the code section R13.2.6.3 to R13.2.6.5 and line 25 on page 287 should be revised
to:
Figure R13.2.6.35.
151. Thomas Schaeffer 290 1 Section number R13.4.4.6 should be R13.4.5.6 and it should Agree.
move to the correct location in the Chapter. It will be moved to the correct numerological location and revised
to:
R13.4.4.65.6 The minimum transverse reinforcement required in
this section is typically sufficient………..
152. David P. Gustafson 290 27 Replace “carry” with “resist”. Agree.
It will be revised to:
R13.4.2.3 The basis for this allowable strength is the added
strength provided to the concrete by the confining action of the
steel casing. This strength applies only to non-axial load-bearing
steel where the stress in the steel is taken in hoop tension instead
of axial compression. Steel pile shells are not to be considered in
the design of the pile to carry resist a portion of the pile axial
load.
Potential corrosion of the metal casing should be considered;
provision is based on a non-corrosive environment.
153. Dan Mullins 291 1 Section number seems incorrect or misplaced? Should be Agree, Section number R13.4.5 should be R13.4.6
13.4.5.6 and relocated to the proper position?
154. Thomas Schaeffer 291 3 Add Heading “R13.4.3 Strength Design” Agree.
The heading will be added:
R13.4.3 Strength design
155. Dan Mullins 291 6 Thru line 9. This language seems in conflict with code section Disagree, this commentary is only in reference to the footnote in
13.4.3.2 pointing the user to section 21.2.1 for phi-factors the Table that discusses possible adjustment to the phi factor
based on soil conditions and quality control.

No change required.
156. David L. Hartmann 291 12 Through line 20: Agree, Section number R13.4.5 should be R13.4.6.
Section reference does not match Code It will be revised to:
R13.4.56 Pile caps

66 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
R13.4.5.46.4It is required to take the effective concrete
compressive strength from expression (c) in Table 23.4.3 because
it is generally not feasible to provide confining reinforcement
satisfying 23.5 in a pile cap.
R13.4.5.56.5 If piles are located inside the critical sections d or
d/2 from face of column, for one-way or two-way shear,
respectively, an upper limit on the shear strength at a section
adjacent to the face of the column should be considered. The
CRSI Handbook (1984) offers guidance for this situation.

157. Thomas Schaeffer 291 12 Section number R13.4.5 should be R13.4.6 Agree. Change made.
158. Dan Mullins 291 12 Section needs to be renumbered? 13.4.6? Agree, Section number R13.4.5 should be R13.4.6
159. ACI Staff 291 12 Suggest revise “R13.4.5 Pile Caps” to “R13.4.2 Allowable axial Agree, Section number R13.4.5 should be R13.4.6
strength” to coordinate with code language.
160. David L. Hartmann 291 13 Through line 15: Agree, Section number R13.4.5 should be R13.4.6
Section does not address Code section
161. Thomas Schaeffer 291 13 Section number R13.4.5.4 should be R13.4.6.4 Agree. Change made.
162. ACI Staff 291 13 Possibly revise “R13.4.5.4 It is required ……… pile cap”. It does Agree, Section number R13.4.5.4 should be R13.4.6.4
not coincide with provision 13.4.5.4. It looks like it refers to
provision 13.4.2.6.
163. ACI Staff 291 14 Change Table 23.4.3 to Table 23.4.3(a). Should it be expression Agree a correction is needed for Table reference, plus the current
(f) instead of (c) also? commentary is too Code like and too specific. There are more
options. Therefore, additional changes are proposed.

"R13.4.35.4 It is required typically necessary to take the effective


concrete compressive strength from expression (c) (d) or (f) in
Table 23.4.3(a) because it is generally not feasible practical to
provide confining reinforcement satisfying 23.5 in a pile cap."

164. Thomas Schaeffer 291 16 Section number R13.4.5.5 should be R13.4.6.5 Agree. Change made.
165. ACI Staff 291 16 Possibly revise “R13.4.5.5 If piles are located ………… for this Agree, Section number R13.4.5.5 should be R13.4.6.5
situation”. It does not coincide with provision 13.4.5.5. It looks
like it refers to provision 13.4.2.7.

67 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
166. Thomas Schaeffer 293 8 Section number R13.2.6.3 should be R13.2.6.5 Agree, Figure number R13.2.6.3 should be R13.2.6.5.
It will be revised to:
Fig. R13.2.6.35 – One-way shear design of a spread footing using
the strut-and-tie method
167. David P. Gustafson 300 23 Re-evaluate the term “non-seismic areas”. Should the term be This comment is actually for line 33.
replaced with something like:
• “low earthquake-risk areas” Agree.
• “non-earthquake-risk area”
Reworded to “commercial buildings located in areas of low
seismic risk.”
168. David P. Gustafson 301 6 Replace “computations” with “calculations”. Agree with editorial change for consistency with the rest of the
Code.

Changed “computations” to “calculations.”


169. Dr. Fariborz 307 15 The footnote on lambda = 0.75 is not aligned with recent Disagree.
Tehrani, PE research, cited in comment No. 4 There is not sufficient information available on the behavior of
beam-column joints with various types of lightweight aggregates
to support the use of a lambda factor other than 0.75.

170. Robinson 307 15 Why is lambda 0.75 for any concrete mixture “containing Disagree.
lightweight aggregate” regardless of the concrete density or There is not sufficient information available on the behavior of
composition? beam-column joints with various types of lightweight aggregates
to support the use of a lambda factor other than 0.75.
171. Reid W. Castrodale 307 15 Table 15.4.2.3 Disagree.
The note following the table indicates that lambda = 0.75 for There is not sufficient information available on the behavior of
any concrete “containing lightweight aggregate,” and 1.0 for beam-column joints with various types of lightweight aggregates
normalweight concrete. to support the use of a lambda factor other than 0.75.

As the note stands, the density limit in the definition of


lightweight concrete is not used, which means that just a
handful of lightweight aggregate could be added, and the full
reduction would be required. The reduction is excessive, and it

68 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
is also a step function, so as soon lightweight aggregate is
added, the concrete has a reduced capacity. This reduction
would also have to be applied to internal curing mixtures.

This requirement inhibits the use of lightweight concrete in


concrete frames. While the design code must be conservative,
this appears overly conservative. There are test data indicating
performance of lightweight concrete in joint shear that satisfies
code requirements. I expect that this issue cannot be
addressed in this code cycle, but it should be addressed in the
next cycle.
172. ACI Staff 311 5 The reference to ACI 445A-18 needs to be removed/rescinded Agree.
to an older reference as discussed during the development of
this code with Klein. Please verify what the correct reference Specific code change required:
will be. Reason: this document is not finalized – even if it was Replace “ACI 445A-18” with “Klein (2008)”. Reference is already
received by TAC immediately, there is little chance for it to be included in the Code.
published before 318 as would be required.
173. ACI Staff 311 8 Possibly change “For joints in ……… strut-and-tie method of New Business.
Chapter 23.” To “R15.2.5 For joints in ……… strut-and-tie Making such a change would also require moving other parts of
method of Chapter 23.” R15.2 to commentary associated with subsections of R15.2. The
subcommittee believes that at this point it is better to keep the
commentary associated with 15.2 and subsections in a single
commentary in R15.2.

Specific code change required:


For consistency with this intent for commentary section R15.2,
R15.2.4 should be deleted and its first sentence moved to the
beginning of the third paragraph of R15.2. Thus, this paragraph
should read: “Corner joints occur where two non-colinear
members transfer moment and terminate at the joint. A roof-
level exterior joint is an example of a corner joint between two
members, also referred to as a knee joint. Corner joints are
vulnerable…”

69 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

174. ACI Staff 311 14 Possibly change “Transfer of bending …….. Chapter 8.” To New Business.
“R15.2.9 Transfer of bending ………..Chapter 8.” Making such a change would also require moving other parts of
R15.2 to commentary associated with subsections of R15.2. The
subcommittee believes that at this point it is better to keep the
commentary associated with 15.2 and subsections in a single
commentary in R15.2.

A reorganization of some of the content in Chapter 15 was


underway at the end of this Code Cycle. If this reorganization is
continued during the next Code cycle, relocation of some of the
commentary will be considered.

175. Reid W. Castrodale 322 30 16.5.2.5 Agree.


This article refers to “all-lightweight or sand-lightweight
concrete.” It appears that the article should be revised to Specific code change required:
simply refer to “lightweight concrete.” The definitions of all-
and sand-lightweight concrete may not be used by the designer Change “For all-lightweight concrete or sand-lightweight
with the new definition of lambda. concrete” to “For lightweight concrete”. Thus, the sentence
should read: “For lightweight concrete, the bracket or corbel
dimensions…”

176. Restrepo J.I. and 326 24 This line should read Agree.
Rodriguez M.E. “…shear walls structural walls”
See reason given in comment on page 97, line 8. Specific code change required:

Change “shear walls” to “structural walls”. Sentence should then


read: “…in precast columns and wall panels, including structural
walls, are designed to transfer…”

177. Reid W. Castrodale 330 13 Through line 16: Agree. Change made.
R16.5.2.5
Specific code change required:

70 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
If the change to Article 16.5.2.5 proposed in the previous item
is made, this should also be revised. Delete last two sentences of R16.5.2.5, starting with “No data are
available for corbels…” Thus, R16.5.2.5 should read: “Tests
(Mattock et al. 1976a) have shown that the maximum shear
friction strength of lightweight concrete brackets and corbels is a
function of both fc′ and av/d.”

178. Christopher 336 23 The proposed embedment depth 5da ≤ hef ≤ 10da and hef ≥ 1.5 Disagree
Gamache, P.E. in. does not correspond to ICC-ES AC193 and upcoming
revisions to ACI 355.2 where the minimum embedment depth The text as given in ACI 318, 17.3.4 is correct. Please consider the
for screw anchors will be (hnom – hs) ≥ 1.5 in., where hnom is the following:
nominal embedment depth and hs is the dimension from the a) The limitations given in ACI 318 represent the range of
end of the anchor to the first full thread of the screw. experience and validity of the given design equations. The validity
Proposed revision to Line #23 would be: is given for hef ≥ 1.5in. considering reproducible concrete
17.3.4 For screw anchors with embedment depths h ef ≤ 10da characteristics and hef ≥ 5da representing the lower bound of
and (hnom – hs) ≥ 1.5in., concrete breakout strength… tested products considered in the derivation of the design
Additional notations in Chapter 2 will be needed as follows: equations. Therefore it is necessary to keep both conditions.
hnom = distance between the embedded end of the concrete b) The value for hef to be used in design is given in the Evaluation
screw, the expansion or undercut anchor and the concrete Report. Therefore the designer does not necessarily have to know
surface, in. about the definitions of hnom and hs.
hs = length of the embedded end of the screw anchor without c) ICC-ES AC193 and ACI 355.2 are test and evaluation provisions.
full height of thread, in. They give information under which conditions practice is correctly
simulated by the given tests. Therefore the range of applications
for test and design provisions do not have to agree. ICC test and
ACI 318 design provisions are two separate items.

179. Karl Pennings 338 17 In section 17.5.2.1 are you allowed to take a reduction if excess No. ACI 318 does not allow the excess reinforcement factor to be
reinforcement is provided according to 25.4.10.1 or is it all or used for anchor reinforcement. This is an all or nothing provision.
nothing with the anchor reinforcement? Presumably the reinforcement area is sized to closely correspond
with the applied load. Having a slight “excess” is not detrimental
to transferring load in the connection. We have added
commentary for clarification.

71 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Commentary Change to R17.5.2.1(b):

To ensure development of anchor reinforcement for shear, the


enclosing anchor reinforcement shown in Fig. R17.5.2.1(b)(i)
should be in contact with the anchor and placed as close as
practicable to the concrete surface. The research (Eligehausen et
al. 2006b) on which the provisions for enclosing reinforcement are
based was limited to anchor reinforcement with maximum
diameter equivalent to a No. 5 bar. The larger bend radii associated
with larger bar diameters may significantly reduce the
effectiveness of the anchor reinforcement for shear; therefore,
anchor reinforcement larger than a No. 6 bar is not recommended.
Because development for full fy is required, the use of excess
reinforcement to reduce development length is not permitted for
anchor reinforcement.

180. ACI Staff 353 15 Increasing only Eh by 0 was submitted as an erratum to ACI Disagree.
318-11 and to the third printing of ACI 318-14. A justification
or clarification for the change in the commentary was not As justification of the errata, the intent of omega is to increase the
provided. seismic force to elastic levels to provide additional protection
FEMA P750 referenced in R17.10.5.3 references ACI 318-11 against concrete breakout for anchors governed by this failure
Section D3.3 in Table 1 on page 277, where E is increased by 0 mode in tension. The Fp value is a reduced demand value that
and not only Eh. reflects component ductility. The vertical component is not
adjusted for these effects since vertical response is typically
unaffected by component ductility. Applying omega to the vertical
component would have the effect of amplifying the vertical
component beyond elastic response.

In accordance with ASCE 7-10, Section 12.4.3.1 Horizontal Seismic


Load Effect with
Overstrength Factor:

Emh = Ω0 QE

72 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

Where QE = effects of horizontal seismic forces. It is not applied to


the vertical component, where Fv = 0.2QE = 0.2Fp.

Page 353, Line 15: No Change.

Code Change to 17.10.6.3 (Page 354, Line 14):

(c) Anchor or group of anchors shall be designed for the


maximum shear obtained from factored load combinations that
include E, with E Eh increased by Ω0.
181. James Getaz 358 21 “…accordance with 17.5.2.9…” 17.5.2 goes up to 17.5.2.6. Agree

Page 358, Line 21 Should read:


“reinforcement provided in accordance with 17.5.2.9 17.5.2.1
may be used, or the reinforcement should be”
Also:
Page 49, Line 30:
“used for this purpose (refer to 17.4.2.9 and 17.5.2.9 17.5.2.1);
however, other configurations that can be”

182. David P. Gustafson 382 15 Replace “seismic” with “earthquake”. Agree

Page 382, Line 15:


“Under seismic earthquake conditions, the direction of shear may
not be predictable. The full shear force”
183. Restrepo J.I. and 385 22 And on line 26: These lines should read Agree
Rodriguez M.E. “…shear walls structural walls”
See reason given in comment on page 97, line 8. Page 385, Line 22:
“on typical anchor bolt connections for wood-framed shear walls
structural walls (Fennel et al. 2009) showed”

Page 385, Line 26:

73 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
“and toughness for the shear walls structural walls and limited
the loads acting on the bolts. Procedures for”

184. David P. Gustafson 387 2 Replace “carry” with “resist”. Agree

Page 387, Line 2:


“carry resist a portion of the shear load because they displace the
same as the shear lug. The portion of”
185. Restrepo J.I. and 408 8 “moment frames” should read “structural frames” Disagree. “moment frames” is the commonly used name for this
Rodriguez M.E. structural system. “Structural frames” is too general and could
Reason: include other types of frames, such as braced frames.
The reason is that since ACI 318-19 uses “structural walls”, No change.
then it would be appropriate using “structural frames”.
All cases in 318-19 that read now “moment frames” should be
changed to “structural frames”
186. Catherine French 410 5 With the changes that have occurred in the stress-strain Agree.
and Conrad relationship for nonprestressed deformed reinforcing bars over Reason statement: This is a structural safety concern, because as
Paulson the time since the Type 2 mechanical splice provisions of currently‐defined, Type 2 mechanical splices on high grades of
Section 18.2.7.1(b) were developed in the 1990s, and also reinforcement (e.g., Grade 80 and 100) might not develop
considering that higher grades of reinforcement have been reasonable levels of strain in the bars being connected, likely
introduced into ASTM A706 since the 1990s, the current leading to non‐ductile behavior under earthquake loading. The
requirements for Type 2 mechanical splices should be updated graphic shown with the proposed code change illustrates that the
to develop a reasonable minimum strain requirement for the current Type 2 requirements provide levels of tensile strain as
Type 2 mechanical splice. As a minimum, ACI 318 should adopt low as 2 to 4 percent, which may not be adequate for some
strain-based provisions for Grade 100 reinforcement and special seismic applications.
consider adding a commentary statement cautioning users
about the lack of ability of the current Type 2 mechanical splice Specific Code/Commentary Change Proposal Required: The
requirement to achieve ductility when splicing lower grades of proposed Code/Commentary Change keeps Type 1 and Type 2
reinforcement (Grades 60 and 80). It is preferable that ACI 318 mechanical splices and restricts application of Type 2 for Grade
adopt revised strain-based provisions to address all grades of 80 and 100 bars in special seismic systems. A sentence will be
reinforcement. Additionally, ACI 318 should clearly state deleted in Commentary of Chapter 25 (i.e., first sentence of
seismic “toughness” requirements (inelastic cyclic strain R25.5.7.1). Requirements for seismic cyclic toughness, however,

74 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
endurance, including reversal of yield) for Type 2 spliced bar are proposed to be taken up as new business because of the
systems. complexity with defining appropriate requirements.

Due to space limits in this response column, the


Code/Commentary Changes required to address Public Comment
186 is given following Public Comment 186.

75 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

The following is the graphic mentioned in response to first comment by Frosch 186:

Splices Precisely
Type 2Complying
Mechanical Splice with Type 2
140
Type 2 on A706 Grade 100
120

Type 2 on A706 Grade 80


100

Type 2 on A706 Grade 60


Stress (ksi)

80
Code does not require development of
60 strains above those associated with
“Type 2” minimum strength

40 Representative actual stress-strain curves for reinforcing bars commercially produced in the U.S. during 2017-2019.
Tests conducted at the structural laboratories of Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates.
*A706 GR100 #11 A706 GR80 #6 A706 GR80 #18
A706 GR80 #9 A706 GR80 #7 A706 GR80 #5
20 A706 GR80 #14 A706 GR80 #8 A706/A615 GR60 #14
A706/A615 GR60 #10 A706/A615 60 11 A706 GR60 #11
A706 GR60 #7 A706/A615 60 9 A706/A615 60 5
GR100 Type 2/Type 1 Mech Splice GR80 Type 2/Type 1 Mech Splice GR60 Type 2 Mech Splice
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Strain (percent)

Approved Code and Commentary Changes in Response to Public Comments 186 and 377:

CHAPTER 18—EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT STRUCTURES


18.2—General
18.2.7 Mechanical splices in special moment frames and special structural walls
18.2.7.1 Mechanical splices shall be classified as (a) or (b):

76 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
(a) Type 1 – Mechanical splice conforming to 25.5.7
(b) Type 2 – Mechanical splice conforming to 25.5.7 and capable of developing the specified tensile strength of the spliced bars

18.2.7.2 Type 1 Except for Type 2 mechanical splices on Grade 60 reinforcement, mechanical splices shall not be located within a distance equal to
twice the member depth from the column or beam face for special moment frames or from critical sections where yielding of the reinforcement is likely
to occur as a result of lateral displacements beyond the linear range of behavior. Type 2 mechanical splices on Grade 60 reinforcement shall be permitted
at any location, except as noted in 18.9.2.1(c).

R18.2.7 Mechanical splices in special moment frames and special structural walls—In a structure undergoing inelastic deformations during an
earthquake, the tensile stresses in reinforcement may approach the tensile strength of the reinforcement. The requirements for Type 2 mechanical splices
are intended to avoid a splice failure when the reinforcement is subjected to expected stress levels in yielding regions. Type 1 mechanical splices on any
grade of reinforcement and Type 2 mechanical splices on Grade 80 and Grade 100 reinforcement are not required to satisfy the more stringent
requirements for Type 2 mechanical splices, and may not be capable of resisting the stress levels expected in yielding regions. The locations of Type 1
these mechanical splices are restricted because tensile stresses in reinforcement in yielding regions can exceed the strength requirements of 18.2.7.1
25.5.7. The restriction on all Type 1 mechanical splices and on Type 2 mechanical splices on Grade 80 and Grade 100 reinforcement applies to all
reinforcement resisting earthquake effects, including transverse reinforcement.
Recommended detailing practice would preclude the use of splices in regions of potential yielding in members resisting earthquake effects. If use of
mechanical splices in regions of potential yielding cannot be avoided, there should be documentation on the actual strength characteristics of the bars to
be spliced, on the force-deformation characteristics of the spliced bar, and on the ability of the Type 2 mechanical splice to be used to meet the specified
performance requirements.

77 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Although mechanical splices as defined by 18.2.7 need not be staggered, staggering is encouraged and may be necessary for constructibility or provide
enough space around the splice for installation or to meet the clear spacing requirements.
R18.2.7.1 The additional requirement for a Type 2 mechanical splice is intended to result in a mechanical splice capable of sustaining inelastic strains
through multiple cycles.

R18.5—Intermediate precast structural walls


Connections between precast wall panels or between wall panels and the foundation are required to resist forces induced by earthquake motions and
to provide for yielding in the vicinity of connections. When Type 2 mechanical splices are used to directly connect primary reinforcement, the probable
strength of the splice should be at least 1.5 times the specified yield strength of the reinforcement.

R18.9—Special moment frames constructed using precast concrete


The detailing provisions in 18.9.2.1 and 18.9.2.2 are intended to produce frames that respond to design displacements essentially like monolithic
special moment frames.
Precast frame systems composed of concrete elements with ductile connections are expected to experience flexural yielding in connection regions.
Reinforcement in ductile connections can be made continuous by using Type 2 mechanical splices or any other technique that provides development in
tension or compression of at least the specified tensile strength of bars (Yoshioka and Sekine 1991; Kurose et al. 1991; Restrepo et al. 1995a,b).
Requirements for mechanical splices are in addition to those in 18.2.7 and are intended to avoid strain concentrations over a short length of reinforcement
adjacent to a splice device. Additional requirements for shear strength are provided in 18.9.2.1 to prevent sliding on connection faces. Precast frames

78 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
composed of elements with ductile connections may be designed to promote yielding at locations not adjacent to the joints. Therefore, design shear Ve,
as calculated according to 18.6.5.1 or 18.7.6.1, may not be conservative.

18.12—Diaphragms and trusses


18.12.7 Reinforcement
18.12.7.4 Type 2 splices are required where mechanical splices on Grade 60 reinforcement are used to transfer forces between the diaphragm and the
vertical elements of the seismic-force-resisting system. Grade 80 and Grade 100 reinforcement shall not be mechanically spliced for this application.

CHAPTER 25
R25.5.7.1 The maximum reinforcement stress used in design under the Code is the specified yield strength. To ensure sufficient strength in splices so
that yielding can be achieved in a member and thus brittle failure avoided, the 25 percent increase above the specified yield strength was selected as both
an adequate minimum for safety and a practicable maximum for economy.

187. David L. Hartmann 411 25 Through line 26: Disagree.


“. . . with E taken as twice that prescribed by the general The distinction between Omega-zero and the factor of 2 is
building code.” Rather than Ω0 similar to 18.3.3 (b)? intentional.
The factors are intended to be different for beams and columns.
Columns are more critical than beams, hence the higher
multiplier on column shear.
No change.
188. Ahmed M.Osman 411 26 18.4.2.3 (b) … Similar scenario for beams as above. Non responsive
It is not clear what “similar scenario for beams as above” means,
or what specific change is being proposed.

79 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
No change.
189. Ahmed M.Osman 412 12 18.4.3.1 (b) … What if the columns are in a scenario where Ωo Disagree.
is required when calculating the factored load combination E Omega-zero should only be applied once to the design of any
(e.g. columns supporting discontinued members)? Does that structural member.
mean for these Columns the maximum shear required per No change.
18.4.3.1 (b) is obtained using twice Ωo (one from the factored
load combination and the other from intermediate frame
requirement) or only one Ωo is sufficient?
190. Joe Ferzli (CKC), 412 22 Through line 26: Disagree.
Jerry Lee (CKC) Is it intended to intraplate in the case where reinforcement is It is not intended to interpolate between steel grades. In any
specified to a steel Grade between 60 ksi and 80ksi? Please case, Grade 75 reinforcement will soon be discontinued, so the
clarify [This comment applies to many locations throughout CH question of what to do with Grade 75 reinforcement will become
18] moot.
No change.
191. Ricardo Gómez 416 5 Width bw shall be at least the GREATER of 0.3h and 10 in. Disagree.
Serrano “lesser” is correct.
No change. New business.
192. Patricio Placencia 419 6 Provision 18.7.2: Disagree.
Column size at first story (at ground level) should be large There is no requirement in ACI 318 that the axial load on columns
enough such any Pu be smaller than Pb. In special moment of special moment frames must be less than the balanced axial
frames, plastic hinges are supposed to be at beam edges, but load Pb. Therefore the proposed restrictions are not necessary.
the plastic mechanism is completed with plastic hinges at No change.
column bases too. If Pu is larger than Pb, the column cannot be
ductile.

The code recommendation may be either after the column


design is made, to check that the maximum Pu < Pb, or before
modelling the structure, as pre dimensioning step, for interior
columns:

80 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Goal: Pu < Pb (it could be Pu< f Pb, where f is less than 1)
Pu at base= 1.2 PD +1.6PL

Assuming Pb is similar to Po/3

The concept is valid for exterior columns as well, but it is not


recommended to have half of Ag of the interior column.

193. Saman Abdullah 419 17 “load combination” should be “load combinations” Agree.
Editorial change.
Change “combination” to “combinations”
194. Carson Baker (CPL) 420 8 This provision restricts column longitudinal bar size based on Disagree.
the unbraced length of the column. At columns supporting This section is related to the reinforcement detailing of columns
mezzanines or ramps, or which frame into large beams and in special moment frames only. The examples cited are very
slab steps and have very short unbraced lengths, this provision unlikely to be designed as special moment frames, so no
leads to impractical designs, requiring the use of #4 bars or exception is needed.
smaller. It is recommended either that an exception be No change.
introduced such that bars need not be taken as smaller than #6
bars, or that this provision need not apply if bars are
continuous (eg. not lap spliced) within the unbraced length.
195. Restrepo J.I. and 420 16 18.7.5.1 Transverse reinforcement required in 18.7.5.2 through Agree that this proposal should be considered by Subcommittee
Rodriguez M.E. 18.7.5.4 shall be provided over a length ℓo from each joint face H. However, there is insufficient time to evaluate a proposed
and on both sides of any section where flexural yielding is likely change of this magnitude. This proposal should be considered for
to occur as a result of lateral displacements beyond the elastic new business in the next code cycle.

81 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
range of behavior. Length ℓo shall be at least the greatest of (a) New business.
through (f) conform 18.7.5.1.1 or 18.7.5.1.2:

(a) The depth of the column at the joint face or at the


section where flexural yielding is likely to occur
(b) One-sixth of the clear span of the column
(c) 18 in.

18.7.5.1.1 Columns confined with rectilinear hoops or crossties


at least the greatest of (a) and (b):

(a) 2h
(b) 0.3 ℓu

18.7.5.1.2 Columns confined with with either single or


overlapping spirals or circular hoops at least the greatest of (a)
and (b):

(a) 3h
(b) 0.4 ℓu

Reason:
Recent work by Guerrini and Restrepo (2018) have shown that
current provisions of ACI 318 may be liberal, and that columns
reinforced with circular hoops or spirals are treated identically
to those reinforced with rectilinear hoops and crossties.
Analysis and testing have shown that the spread of plasticity in
columns, where special transverse reinforcement needs to be
detailed, is significantly longer than what is currently being
recommended, particularly when the axial load ration in the
column is moderate or high. Furthermore, in columns
reinforced with circular hoop the extent of plasticity is
significantly greater than that in columns reinforced with

82 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
rectilinear hoops. The requirements proposed are a
simplification of those recommended by Guerrini and
Restrepo.

Reference
Guerrini, G. and Restrepo, J.I., 2018. Extent of Plasticity in
Reinforced Concrete Columns. ACI Structural Journal, 115(5).
196. Restrepo J.I. and 420 28 In our opinion the following addition is necessary in 18.7.5.2: Disagree.
Rodriguez M.E. Subcommittee H has considered the need to provide seismic
“(a) Transverse reinforcement shall comprise either single or hooks at both ends of cross ties in columns of special moment
overlapping spirals, circular hoops, or single or overlapping frames with low axial loads and concluded this is not required.
rectilinear hoops with or without crossties. Where crossties are Cross ties with seismic hooks at both ends are required, though,
used, seismic hooks shall be provided at each end.” for columns with high axial loads or high concrete strengths.
No change.
Reason:
The use of crossties with seismic hooks at each end is specified
for walls in section 18.10.6.4 of ACI 318-19. The reason is that
tests of RC walls have shown that crossties having alternating
90-degree and 135-degree hooks might not be as effective as
crossties with seismic hooks at both ends. Considering the
similarities in RC walls and RC columns, it seems appropriate to
have comparable requirements in both RC elements.
Incidentally, the use of crossties with seismic hooks in columns
and walls is a common practice throughout Latin America.
197. Restrepo J.I. and 421 6 The problem to address in earthquake resisting design of RC Disagree.
Rodriguez M.E. structures is not only confinement in cores, but it is also about Subcommittee H has considered the need to provide seismic
longitudinal bar fracture after buckling after the loss of the hooks at both ends of cross ties in columns of special moment
concrete cover, which can occur in columns with low and frames with low axial loads and concluded this is not required.
moderate axial compression. Therefore 18.7.5.2(f) should Cross ties with seismic hooks at both ends are required, though,
specify seismic hooks not only for columns with high axial loads for columns with high axial loads.
or high strength concrete but also for any column in structures No change.
resisting earthquakes.

83 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
198. Restrepo J.I. and 421 11 18.7.5.3 Spacing of transverse reinforcement shall conform Disagree.
Rodriguez M.E. 18.7.5.3.1 or 18.7.5.3.2 not exceed the smallest least of (a) It is not clear why the commenters believe that circular hoops are
through (ed): less effective at restraining bar buckling than rectangular hoops.
The commenters have not presented research or other evidence
18.7.5.3.1 Spacing of transverse reinforcement in columns that the spacing for circular hoops and rectangular ties need to
confined with rectilinear hoops or crossties shall not exceed be different.
the least of (a) through (d): No change.

(a) One-fourth of the minimum column dimension


(b) For Grade 60 longitudinal reinforcement, 6db of the
smallest longitudinal bar
(c) For Grade 80 longitudinal reinforcement, 5db of the
smallest longitudinal bar
(ed) so, as calculated by:
 14 − hx 
so = 4 +  
 3 

18.7.5.3.2 Spacing of transverse reinforcement in columns


reinforced with either single or overlapping spirals or circular
hoops shall not exceed:

(a) One-fourth of the column diameter


(b) For Grade 60 longitudinal reinforcement, 5db of the
smallest longitudinal bar
(c) For Grade 80 longitudinal reinforcement, 4db of the
smallest longitudinal bar

Reason:
The possible tighter spacing limitation of the transverse
reinforcement in circular columns reflects the fact that hoops,
while being very efficient at confining the column concrete
core, provide limited restraint against buckling of longitudinal

84 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
bars, which generally buckle along various sets of hoops or
spiral turns.
199. Patricio Placencia 423 9 Provision 18.7.6.1.1 Disagree.
Column shear forces based on top and bottom joint forces Section 18.7.6.1.1 states that the joint forces used to determine
from beams Mpr , is okay for all columns, except for those at Ve “shall be calculated using the maximum probable flexural
ground level, where a plastic hinge at their base is expected, strengths, Mpr, at each end of the column associated with the
and hence, shear forces should be based on column Mpr at range of factored axial forces, Pu, acting on the column.” At the
base top of a foundation, the maximum probable flexural strength is
the Mpr of the column itself, which appears to address the
concern of the commenter.
No change.
200. Patricio Placencia 423 16 Provision 18.7.6.2.1 Disagree.
Vc=0 maybe is a better recommendation for those columns at The proposed change requires more justification.
ground level, where plastic hinges are expected. No change.
For other columns, the conditions for Vc= 0 sound not logic. Vc
has its value for all levels of compression forces, starting with
none. In upper stories, with less compression forces than in
lower ones, but not likely of plastic hinges, Vc=0
201. Dr. Fariborz 426 1 The footnote on lambda = 0.75 is not aligned with recent Disagree.
Tehrani, PE research, cited in comment No. 4 There is not sufficient information available on the behavior of
beam-column joints with various types of lightweight aggregates
to support the use of a lambda factor other than 0.75.

202. Robinson 426 1 Why is lambda 0.75 for “concrete containing lightweight Disagree.
aggregate” regardless of the concrete density or composition? There is not sufficient information available on the behavior of
beam-column joints with various types of lightweight aggregates
to support the use of a lambda factor other than 0.75.

203. Reid W. Castrodale 426 1 Table 18.8.4.3 Disagree.


Same note is used as for Table 15.4.2.3. See comments for that There is not sufficient information available on the behavior of
table (p. 307, line 15). beam-column joints with various types of lightweight aggregates
to support the use of a lambda factor other than 0.75.

85 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
204. Robinson 427 3 Why is lambda 0.75 for lightweight concrete without Disagree.
consideration of the concrete density or composition? There is not sufficient information available on the behavior of
beam-column joints with various types of lightweight aggregates
to support the use of a lambda factor other than 0.75.

205. Reid W. Castrodale 427 3 18.8.5.1 Agree.


This article requires an increase in required development
length for bars in tension for “lightweight concrete” compared Specific code change required:
to bars in normalweight concrete. This reduction is for
“lightweight concrete” rather than “concrete containing Change line 3 of page 427 to: “The value of  shall be 0.75 for
lightweight aggregate” as is used for the note to Table 18.8.4.3. concrete containing lightweight aggregate and 1.0 otherwise.”
Therefore, these requirements, which appear in adjacent
provisions in the code, address lightweight concrete in
different ways, so the requirements may apply differently for
particular situations.

I expect that this distinction is unintended, so it should be


corrected to have uniform application of requirements to
lightweight concrete.
206. Restrepo J.I. and 429 10 Comment on 18.10.2.3(a): New business
Rodriguez M.E. Subcommittee H and the main committee discussed and balloted
This provision recommending an extension of 12 ft violates this provision extensively and concluded that the recommended
Buckingham’s π theorem of dimensional analysis. Such cutoff provisions incorporate an appropriate balance of adequacy
requirement will result unconservative in the design of and practicality. Provisions attempting to achieve greater
rectangular walls when lw exceeds approximately 12 ft/ 0.6 = accuracy are difficult to justify for earthquake loading for which
20 ft. (assuming a tension shift equal to 0.6 lw); and in flanged ground motions and inelastic dynamic response cannot be
walls (such as T, L, [, Z , U walls and the like], when reliance is predicted accurately.
made in the longitudinal reinforcement of the boundary New Business related to the consideration of T-shaped walls.
element at one end of the flange to resist flexure, and the sum No change.
of the portion of the flange from the boundary element to the
wall web plus lw exceeds 20 ft. Both cases described here are
commonly found in practice. The main issue here is that the
shear lag causing the tension shift effect in the longitudinal

86 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
reinforcement of a boundary element not only occurs in the
plane where the wall resists the seismic shear, but also in the
plane of the flanges. The following strut-and-tie sketch, Fig. A,
clearly illustrates the load path through the web and flange in a
T-section wall with the flange in tension.

(a) Elevation (b) Side elevation showing


flange
Figure A. 3-D strut-and-tie model

The following change is suggested

(a) Except at the top of a wall, longitudinal reinforcement


participating in flexure at a section of the wall shall
extend at least 12 ft a distance lsl above the point at
which it is no longer require to resist flexure but need
not extend more than ld above the next floor level,
where

lsl = 0.6 lw in rectangular walls

lsl – The greater of 0.6 lw,x and 0.6(lw,y + lfi) in flanged


walls, where boundary reinforcement in the flanges
participate in flexure.

87 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

Suggested commentary

R18.10.2.3 Figure B shows a T-section wall with


seismic attack in x and y directions, respectively.
Boundary element Bars “A” resist flexure in both
directions of attack. To cut some of these bars off, the
shear lag should be considered in each of the two
directions. In the x-direction, the bars need to be
extended a distance 0.6 lw,x from the section where
the bars are not needed to resist flexure in such
direction. In the y-direction, the bars need to be
extended a distance 0.6(lw,y + lfi) from the section
where the bars are not needed to resist flexure in
such direction. The structural engineer should
evaluate the worst of the two cases.

Figure B. T-section wall with seismic attack in x and y


directions

88 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
207. William Pollalis, 429 17 We would suggest that the Code should prevent the use of lap New business
Santiago Pujol, splices in longitudinal bars in all seismic applications regardless Subcommittee H is of the opinion that lap splices should be
Robert Frosch of classification of the wall, especially for grades higher than allowed in walls, but that certain restrictions should be placed on
60ksi in ordinary walls. Please refer to the appended file for the allowable locations of lap splices. For example, in the cited
documentation supporting this statement. section, lap splices have been prohibited near the base of
slender, special walls and at other critical sections. Further
restrictions on the locations of lap splices in walls can be taken up
as future business.
No change. Future business.

208. Carson Baker (CPL) 429 17 Is the intent that 18.10.2.3 (c) is required only for walls with Disagree.
aspect ratio h/l > 2 and designed to have a single critical The intention of this provision is intended to apply to any wall
section? If so, this language should be added to section (c), that has a critical section, and at every critical section.
otherwise as written this would apply to any wall that has a No change.
critical section, and at every critical section. For walls with
irregular openings, this could imply lap splices are not
permitted across the entire wall.
209. Saman Abdullah 429 17 The language of item (c), lines 17-22, is cumbersome and Agree.
should be improved. The language of 18.10.2.3(c) is indeed
confusing. A figure is to be added to the commentary to help
explain (see response to Lepage). Replace 18.10.2.3(c) as follows:

(c) Lap splices of longitudinal reinforcement within boundary


regions shall not be permitted over a height equal to hsx above,
and ℓd below, critical sections where yielding of longitudinal
reinforcement is likely to occur as a result of lateral
displacements. The value of hsx need not exceed 20 ft. Boundary
regions include those within lengths specified in 18.10.6.4(a) and
within a length equal to the wall thickness measured beyond the
intersecting region(s) of connected walls.

89 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Adjust/insert figure as shown below as well:

210. Saman Abdullah 429 26 Page 429 lines 26-33 and page 430 lines 1-5 Agree
Make the changes described by the commenter below the line
For item (a), it does not make sense that l_be is used because “Suggested revised text (this would be much easier to apply):”
l_be is based on a compression check, whereas the minimum
quantity of longitudinal reinforcement refers to boundary
longitudinal reinforcement in tensions, which is at the other
end of the wall (not compression boundary).

Suggested revisions are provided below. Note that, if the


suggested revisions are accepted, Fig. R18.10.2 and the caption
for this figure are correct. However, if the suggested revisions
90 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
are not accepted, then possibly a new figure (Fig. R18.10.2(a))
is need that shows l_be (and current figure could be retained
as, e.g., Fig. R18.10.2(b)).

Suggested revised text (this would be much easier to apply):

18.10.2.4 Walls or wall piers with hw/lw ≥ 2.0 that are


effectively continuous from the base of structure to top of wall
and are designed to have a single critical section for flexure and
axial loads shall have longitudinal reinforcement at the ends of
a vertical wall segment section that satisfies (a) through (dc).

(a) Where boundary elements are required by 18.10.6, the


longitudinal reinforcement ratio within the boundary element
shall be at least 6 f ' f

(ba) Where boundary elements are not required by 18.10.6,


the lLongitudinal reinforcement ratio within 0.15lw from the
end of a vertical wall segment, and over a width equal to the
wall thickness, shall be at least 6√f’c/fy

(cb) The longitudinal reinforcement required by 18.10.2.4(a) or


18.10.2.4(b) shall extend vertically above and below the critical
section at least the greater of lw and Mu/3Vu.

(dc) No more than 50% of the reinforcement required by


18.10.2.4(a) or 18.10.2.4(b) shall be terminated at any one
section.

211. Saman Abdullah 430 7 “Or Spliced” Should be removed, as splices should not be Agree.
allowed in coupling beams. Delete “or spliced” in line 7

91 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
212. Saman Abdullah 430 14 “–Vu shall be obtained …. factored load combinations.” This Agree.
sentence should be deleted. It is the same sentence on lines Delete the sentence “-Vu shall be obtained…factored load
20-21. CH09 as approved in Dallas. combinations.” From lines 14 and 15. Leave the words “Design
forces” as an italicized heading in line 14.

In addition, modify commentary section R18.10.3 as follows:


R18.10.3 Design forces—Design shears for structural walls are
obtained from lateral load analysis with the appropriate load
factors. However, tThe possibility of yielding in components of
such structures structural walls should be considered, as in the
portion of a wall between two window openings, in which case the
actual shear may be in excess of the shear indicated by lateral load
analysis based on factored design forces.
213. Zach Whitman 430 20 Does the committee intend for the factored shear force to Agree. Add commentary to Section R18.10.3.1.
(CPL) include the redundancy factor calculated per ASCE 7? In ASCE “The application of ΩV to Vu does not preclude the application of
7-16 12.4.3.1, load combinations with overstrength included do a redundancy factor if required by the general building code.”
not require the redundancy factor. It would be helpful for 318-
19 to discuss in the commentary if the committee believes the
ACI overstrength factors should or should not be applied with
the redundancy factor. As ACI references Vu and not the Qe
used in the ASCE 7 equations, it is not necessarily clear what is
intended.
214. Zach Whitman 430 26 Is the intent for the value of Mu to include the redundancy Disagree.
(CPL) factor per ASCE 7-16 Section 12.4.3? This would be useful to The application of overstrength and redundancy factors used to
clarify in the commentary. compute Vu is the province of ASCE 7.
No change.
215. Zach Whitman 430 26 In many cases, the ratio Mpr/Mu will be much greater than 1.5. Agree
(CPL) While 1.5 is a decent estimate of overstrength for non-coupled Change equation 18.10.3 by adding at the end “<= 3Vu”
planar walls, flanged walls are more commonly found in
building design and are not well-approximated by planar wall
overstrength. Consider the case of a simple core comprised of
two coupled C-shapes. In this case, the flexure of one C-shape
is controlled by the load combination associated with tension
exerted on the shape by core coupling as well as the -0.2Sds D
92 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
contribution. The difference in factored design load between
the "heavy" (compression due to coupling, +0.2SdsD) and
"light" (tension due to coupling, -0.2Sds) axial loads can be
extremely large. This could result in Mpr/Mu values up to 4 or
5.

Is it the intent of the authors that values of 4 or 5 be used? The


commentary states that "a value greater than 1.5 may be
appropriate if provided longitudinal reinforcement exceeds
that required," but the axial load effect could create a very
large overstrength factor even if the flexural reinforcement
were designed at a DCR of 1.0.

We propose that the “Greater of” in Table 18.10.3.1.2 is


replaced by “Lesser of.” This would create an effective
overstrength cap of 1.5*1.8 = 2.7. Factors derived from flexural
overstrength calculations reaching the 4-5 range would make
shear walls infeasible as a system for many buildings. A phi
factor of 0.75 would be taken whenever the overstrength
factor is taken as more than 1.0
216. Restrepo J.I. and 431 7 18.10.3.1.3 reads: Agree.
Rodriguez M.E. “Where ns shall not be taken less than 0.007 hwcs.” On page 431, line 7, make the following changes

This requirement needs to be revised since ns is the number of Where ns shall not be taken less than the quantity 0.007 hwcs, in
stories which has no units, and hwcs is a height with units in in. units of number of stories.
217. Allen Adams 431 10 Section 18.10.4.1: It says that “Vn of structural walls shall not Agree.
exceed…”, and then it gives Eq. (18.10.4.1). There is The revised provision appears below.
disagreement among engineers on whether Eq. (18.10.4.1) 18.10.4.1 Vn shall be calculated by:

( )
gives the design shear strength Vn of Special Walls, or is merely
a limit on Vn for Special Walls. It doesn’t say “… shall be Vn =  c  f c' + t f yt Acv (18.10.4.1)
calculated by…”, which is the terminology used elsewhere where:
throughout ACI 318. And the phrase “… shall not exceed…” is
used extensively throughout the spec but only after some value c = 3 for hw/ℓw  1.5

93 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
is given, which is then limited by the “… shall not exceed…” c = 2 for hw/ℓw  2.0
value. It appears from outside sources that the intent of this
Section is to provide the value Vn to be used, but it doesn’t It shall be permitted to linearly interpolate the value of c between
explicitly say that. Note that even though Section 11.1.2 says 3 and 2 for 1.5 < hw/ℓw < 2.0
that special walls shall be in accordance with Chapter 18,
Section 18.2.1.2 says that all members shall satisfy Chapters 1
to 17. And Section 11.5.4.3 (see page 245 line 25) says that “Vn
shall be calculated by…” and then gives Eq (11.5.4.3). So this is
the design value Vn, and then considering Section 18.10.4.1,
that value is “not to exceed” Eq. (18.10.4.1).
If the intent of Section 18.10.4.1 is to give the design value of
Vn, please make the simple change:
“Vn of structural walls shall be calculated by…”.
218. Allan Bommer 431 10 (18.10.4.1) The code says “Vn of structural walls shall not Agree.
exceed:”, but from discussions with Jack Moehle it appears the The revised provision appears below.
intent of the committee is that equation 18.10.4.1 is be used as 18.10.4.1 Vn shall be calculated by:

( )
a “shall be permitted to be taken as” value instead of a limiting
“shall not exceed” value. Vn =  c  f c' + t f yt Acv (18.10.4.1)
where:
Note also that NIST CGR 11-919-11 (Seismic Design of Cast-in-
Place Concrete Special Structural Walls and Coupling Beams) c = 3 for hw/ℓw  1.5
references the equation with “defines the nominal shear
strength as” in Section 5.4.
c = 2 for hw/ℓw  2.0
It shall be permitted to linearly interpolate the value of c between
3 and 2 for 1.5 < hw/ℓw < 2.0
219. Zach Whitman 432 23 Is the intent here that 18.10.6.2 is now required for walls with Disagree.
(CPL) a single critical section and h/l > 2? If so, this would be helpful The committee believes that the applications of 18.10.6.2 and
to explain in the commentary. 18.10.6.3 are clear.
No change.
220. Saman Abdullah 432 26 Wrong font style of lw. Change it to “w”. Also, add “a” to Agree.
equation number (i.e., 18.10.6.2a) because the subsequent Change the style of lw, as indicated by yellow highlight.
Also, change the number of equation 18.10.6.2 to 18.10.6.2a
equations is 18.10.6.2b

94 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
221. Restrepo J.I. and 432 26 It reads (18.10.6.2) and it should read (18.10.6.2a) Agree.
Rodriguez M.E. Change the number of equation 18.10.6.2 to 18.10.6.2a
222. Saman Abdullah 433 3 Remove “except as permitted in 18.10.6.4(i)”. This is moved to Agree.
item (i) in lines 7-8. Remove “except as permitted in 18.10.6.4(i)”
223. Saman Abdullah 433 7 Change font of lw. Agree.
Change font of lw
224. Saman Abdullah 433 8 Change 18.10.6.4(g) to 18.10.6.4(i) Agree.
Change 18.10.6.4(g) to 18.10.6.4(i)
225. Zach Whitman 433 8 What is permitted in 18.10.6.4 (g)? I think may be intended to Agree.
(CPL) reference a different subsection, most likely 18.10.6.4 (i). Change 18.10.6.4(g) to 18.10.6.4(i)
226. Saman Abdullah 433 9 Change font of lw. Agree.
Change font of lw
227. Saman Abdullah 433 11 Change font of lw. Agree.
Change font of lw
228. Saman Abdullah 433 11 I believe that Ve (amplified) should be used in this equation in Agree.
lieu of Vu. This model is derived based the maximum shear In Equation 18.10.6.2b, change Vu to Ve.
force developed in the wall tests.
Regarding the remaining comments, the remainder of Chapter 18
There are other sections in the code and commentary where was reviewed, and no other instances requiring a change from Vu
Vu is used as a criterion. The committee should consider using to Ve were identified.
Ve as opposed to Vu.
These sections are §18.10.2.1 (min web reinforcement),
§18.10.2.2 (number of curtains), §18.10.6.5 (a) (development
of web horizontal bars for OBE), and Table 18.10.6.5b
(extending longitudinal reinforcements OBE).

There are other sections such as 18.10.2.4(c) and


18.10.6.2(b)(i), where shear-moment ratios (Mu/3Vu or
Mu/4Vu) are used to determine extending longitudinal
reinforcements and boundary confinements, respectively. For
these provisions, use of Vu is probably appropriate (otherwise,
if Vu is changed to Ve, then Mu would also have to be changed,
possibly to Mpr)

95 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
229. Saman Abdullah 433 11 In appendix C, an SI-unit version of equation 18.10.6.2b should Agree.
be given, as the shear term of the equation changes (i.e., the Added an SI version of this equation to Appendix C
factor in the denominator of the shear term changes from 8 for
f'c in psi to 0.67 for MPa).
230. Saman Abdullah 433 23 Change (i) to (j) [this is because item (g) was added] Agree.
In Line 23 change (i) to (j)
231. Saman Abdullah 434 9 Possibly, Table 18.10.6.5b should be placed in section Consider as new business.
18.10.6.4e (special walls) rather than in 18.10.6.5 “ordinary No change.
walls”. Section 18.10.6.5 should refer to 18.10.6.4, not vice
versa.
232. Andrew Taylor 434 11 section 18.10.6.3(f) is not clear about the lateral constraint of Agree, clarification necessary.
longitudinal bars in boundary elements of walls. One
interpretation is that every longitudinal bar within a special See below.
boundary element is to be supported, but it does not quite say
this. If the intent is to laterally support every bar, I suggest the
following revisions:

(f) Transverse reinforcement shall be arranged such that every


longitudinal bars or bundles of bars around the perimeter of the
boundary element are is laterally supported by a seismic hook of
a crosstie or corner of a hoop….
Public comment No. 232, response to public comment

18.10.6.4 If special boundary elements are required by 18.10.6.2 or 18.10.6.3, (a) through (ik) shall be satisfied:
(a) The boundary element shall extend horizontally from the extreme compression fiber a distance at least the greater of c – 0.1ℓw and c/2, where c is
the largest neutral axis depth calculated for the factored axial force and nominal moment strength consistent with δu.
(b) Width of the flexural compression zone, b, over the horizontal distance calculated by 18.10.6.4(a), including flange if present, shall be at least hu/16.
(c) For walls or wall piers with hw/ℓw ≥ 2.0 that are effectively continuous from the base of structure to top of wall, designed to have a single critical
section for flexure and axial loads, and with c/ℓw ≥ 3/8, width of the flexural compression zone b over the length calculated in 18.10.6.4(a) shall be
greater than or equal to 12 in.
(d) In flanged sections, the boundary element shall include the effective flange width in compression and shall extend at least 12 in. into the web.

96 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
(e) The boundary element transverse reinforcement shall satisfy 18.7.5.2(a) through (d) and 18.7.5.3, except the transverse reinforcement spacing limit
of 18.7.5.3(a) shall be one-third of the least dimension of the boundary element. The vertical spacing of transverse reinforcement in the boundary element
shall be in accordance with Table 18.10.6.5b.
(f) Transverse reinforcement shall be arranged such that longitudinal bars or bundles of bars around the perimeter of the boundary element are laterally
supported by a seismic hook of a crosstie or corner of a hoop. Tthe spacing hx between laterally supported longitudinal bars around the perimeter of the
boundary element shall not exceed the lesser of 14 in. and two-thirds of the boundary element thickness. Lateral support shall be provided by a seismic
hook of a crosstie or corner of a hoop. The length of a hoop leg shall not exceed two times the boundary element thickness, and adjacent hoops shall
overlap at least the lesser of 6 in. and two-thirds the boundary element thickness.
(g) The amount of transverse reinforcement shall be in accordance with Table 18.10.6.4(fg).

Table 18.10.6.4(fg)—Transverse reinforcement for special boundary elements


Transverse Applicable
reinforcement expressions

 Ag  f
0.3  −1 c (a)
 Ach  f yt
Ash/sbc for rectilinear Greater
hoop of
f c (b
0.09
f yt )
 Ag  f c
0.45  −1 (c)
 Ach  f yt
ρs for spiral or Greater
circular hoop of f c (d
0.12
f yt )

97 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
(gh) Concrete within the thickness of the floor system at the special boundary element location shall have specified compressive strength at least
0.7 times fc' of the wall.
(hi) For a distance above and below the critical section specified in 18.10.6.2(b), web vertical reinforcement shall have lateral support provided by the
corner of a hoop or by a crosstie with seismic hooks at each end. Transverse reinforcement shall have a vertical spacing not to exceed 12 in. and diameter
satisfying 25.7.2.2.
[CH011]
(ij) Where the critical section occurs at the wall base, the boundary element transverse reinforcement at the wall base shall extend into the support at
least ℓd, in accordance with 18.10.2.3, of the largest longitudinal reinforcement in the special boundary element. Where the special boundary element
terminates on a footing, mat, or pile cap, special boundary element transverse reinforcement shall extend at least 12 in. into the footing, mat, or pile cap,
unless a greater extension is required by 18.13.2.3.

(jk) Horizontal reinforcement in the wall web shall extend to within 6 in. of the end of the wall. Reinforcement shall be anchored to develop fy within
the confined core of the boundary element using standard hooks or heads. Where the confined boundary element has sufficient length to develop the
horizontal web reinforcement, and Asfy/s of the horizontal web reinforcement does not exceed Asfyt/s of the boundary element transverse reinforcement
parallel to the horizontal web reinforcement, it shall be permitted to terminate the horizontal web reinforcement without a standard hook or head.

Commentary changes: R10.10.6.4

R18.10.6.4 The horizontal dimension of the special boundary element is intended to extend at least over the length where the concrete compressive
strain exceeds the critical value. For flanged wall sections, including box shapes, L-shapes, and C-shapes, the calculation to determine the need for
special boundary elements should include a direction of lateral load consistent with the orthogonal combinations defined in ASCE/SEI 7. The value of
c/2 in 18.10.6.4(a) is to provide a minimum length of the special boundary element. Good detailing practice is to arrange the longitudinal reinforcement
and the confinement reinforcement such that all primary longitudinal reinforcement at the wall boundary is supported by transverse reinforcement.

98 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
A slenderness limit is introduced into the 2014 edition of this Code based on lateral instability failures of slender wall boundaries observed in recent
earthquakes and tests (Wallace 2012; Wallace et al. 2012). For walls with large cover, where spalling of cover concrete would lead to a significantly
reduced section, increased boundary element thickness should be considered.
A value of c/ℓw ≥ 3/8 is used to define a wall critical section that is not tension-controlled according to 21.2.2. A minimum wall thickness of 12 in. is
imposed to reduce the likelihood of lateral instability of the compression zone after spalling of cover concrete.
Where flanges are highly stressed in compression, the web-to-flange interface is likely to be highly stressed and may sustain local crushing failure
unless special boundary element reinforcement extends into the web.
Required transverse reinforcement at wall boundaries is based on column provisions. Expression (a) of Table 18.10.6.4(fg) was applied to wall special
boundary elements prior to the 1999 edition of this Code. It is reinstated in the 2014 edition of this Code due to concerns that expression (b) of Table
18.10.6.4(fg) by itself does not provide adequate transverse reinforcement for thin walls where concrete cover accounts for a significant portion of the
wall thickness. For wall special boundary elements having rectangular cross section, Ag and Ach in expressions (a) and (c) in Table 18.10.6.4(fg) are
defined as Ag = ℓbeb and Ach = bc1bc2, where dimensions are shown in Fig. R18.10.6.4.1. This considers that concrete spalling is likely to occur only on
the exposed faces of the confined boundary element. Tests (Thomsen and Wallace, 2004) show that adequate performance can be achieved using vertical
spacing greater than that permitted by 18.7.5.3(a). The limits on spacing between laterally supported longitudinal bars are intended to provide more
uniform spacing of hoops and crossties for thin walls.

233. Joe Ferzli (CKC), 434 12 Consider allowing crossties in special boundary elements that Disagree.
Jason Thome (CKC) are enclosed by hoops to have alternating 90-degree hooks and Subcommittee H discussed and balloted this change, and
one end and seismic hooks. Requiring seismic hooks at all cross concluded that the provision of cross ties with 135 degree bends
ties is feasible when special boundary elements are pretied. at both ends is necessary for improved seismic performance.
However, this becomes a constructability issue when crossties No change.
need to be field placed between boundary elements. It is also

99 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
an issue when boundary ties need to be field adjusted/tied to
accept diagonally reinforced coupling beams.
234. Daniel S. 448 3 Replace word “pile” with “deep foundation member”. Agree.
Stevenson, P.E. It will be revised to:
Representing DFI 18.13.5.3 For structures assigned to SDC C, D, E, or F, the
Codes and minimum longitudinal and transverse reinforcement required by
Standards 18.13.5.7 through 18.3.5.10 shall be extended over the entire
Committee unsupported length for the portion of pile deep foundation
member in air or water, or in soil that is not capable of providing
adequate lateral restraint to prevent buckling throughout this
length.
235. Daniel S. 448 10 Replace word “pile” with “deep foundation member”. Agree.
Stevenson, P.E. It will be revised to:
Representing DFI 18.13.5.5 For structures assigned to SDC D, E, or F or located in
Codes and Site Class E or F, concrete piles deep foundation members shall
Standards have transverse reinforcement in accordance with 18.7.5.2,
Committee 18.7.5.3, and Table 18.7.5.4(e) within seven pile member
diameters above and below the interfaces between strata that
are hard or stiff and strata that are liquefiable or soft.
236. ACI Staff 448 10 Change Table 18.7.5.4(e) to Table 18.7.5.4. Please confirm. Agree.
Provision will be revised to include Item (e)

Revise to:
18.13.5.5 For structures assigned to SDC D, E, or F or located in
Site Class E or F, concrete deep foundation members shall have
transverse reinforcement in accordance with 18.7.5.2, 18.7.5.3, and
Table 18.7.5.4 Item (e) within seven pile diameters above and
below the interfaces between strata that are hard or stiff and strata
that are liquefiable or soft.

237. Daniel S. 448 18 Does 18.13.5.7 apply to drilled piers? Suggest changing Yes it applies to drilled piers (without casing), as that would be an
Stevenson, P.E. “Uncased cast-in-place drilled or augered piles or piers” to “uncased cast-in-place drilled pier”. Disagree with changing the
Representing DFI “Cast-in-place deep foundations”, so it is clear these provisions terminology as this is consistent with what is currently in ASCE/
Codes and
100 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Standards apply to all cast-in-place concrete deep foundation members. SEI-7, and this terminology is used in several places throughout
Committee This will match current IBC language. the Code.

No change required.
238. Dale C. Biggers, 449 0 The Table requires full-length cages. This is both unnecessary Disagree.
P.E. and very costly in many soil and loading situations. Usually No change to Code or Commentary Required.
cages are only necessary in the upper section of the pile where
soils are weaker. Full length cages are only required in SDC D, E, F; Site Class E, F
and that is consistent with the current IBC requirements. In
addition, the row is titled “Minimum Reinforced Pile Length”, so it
is not felt that further clarification is needed.

No change required.
239. Daniel S. 449 0 Table 18.13.5.7.1 requires full length cages for piles in SDC D The requirement that longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
Stevenson, P.E. through F, site classes E and F. This is a significant change from extend full length of the pile for piles in SDC D-F that occur in Site
Representing DFI the current IBC requirements (IBC 1810.3.9.4.2) and will result Classes E or F is consistent with the current requirement in
Codes and in a significant increase in the cost of construction on some ASCE/SEI-7 [14.2.3.2.3 Reinforcement for Uncased Concrete Piles
Standards projects. Commentary states that full length cages are (SDC D through F)]; therefore, there is no change from current
Committee required because soils are either liquefiable or not capable of requirements.
providing confinement. However, the suspect soils are often
only present in the upper regions of a pile shaft. Consider the For reference, the following is an excerpt from ASCE-7
case of a pile 100 feet long, where soft/liquefiable soils are [14.2.3.2.3]:
only present in the upper 20 feet. The remaining 80 feet of the In addition, for piles located in Site Classes E or F, longitudinal
pile shaft is founded in dense/hard soils. The rationale for full reinforcement and transverse confinement reinforcement, as
length piles given in the commentary would not be applicable described above, shall extend the full length of the pile.
in this circumstance. Proposed code section 18.13.5.5 requires
transverse reinforcing (and therefore vertical reinforcing) to No change required.
extend at least 7 pile diameters above and below the interface
between strata that are hard/stiff and strata that is
soft/liquefiable. This section (which matches IBC 2018 section
1810.3.9.4.2.2) will ensure piles have adequate
reinforcement/confinement and ductility where
soft/liquefiable soils are present. Full length cages should not

101 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
be required for every project assigned to SDC D through F with
site class E and F. Note 1 to the table does allow for a small
reduction in cage lengths, but the 5% limit from total pile
length is not significant. For the example given above, a cage
length of 95 feet will be required, whereas current IBC code
would require a cage length of only 50 feet. Removal of the
requirement for minimum number of bars (per 10.7.3.1) in this
table for sections of deep foundation members not required to
have transverse reinforcement per 18.13.5.5 would allow for
piles to be reinforced with a cage in the upper section where
soils are liquefiable or soft, and a single center bar in the lower
section where soils are firm. This would match current practice
and IBC requirements.
240. ACI Staff 449 0 Change Table 18.7.5.4(e) to Table 18.7.5.4 in two places. Please Agree.
confirm. Provision will be revised to include Item (e)

Revise “Table 18.7.5.4 Item (e)” in two places in the Table


18.13.5.7.1
241. Thomas Schaeffer 451 23 Delete “(b)”, it does not belong on this line Agree.
Delete “(b)” in front of “[CF001]” on line 23
242. Thomas Schaeffer 451 24 “(c)” should be “(b)”; it appears that this is mislabeled due to Agree.
automatic numbering Change (c) to (b) on line 24
243. Thomas Schaeffer 451 28 “(d)” should be “(c)” Agree.
Change (d) to (c) on line 28
244. Thomas Schaeffer 452 1 “(e)” should be “(d)” Agree.
Change (e) to (d) on line 1
245. Thomas Schaeffer 454 2 “(f)” should be “(e)” Agree.
Change (f) to (e) on line 2
246. Thomas Schaeffer 454 8 In the Equation, the variables “sbc” is missing after “0.3” Agree.
Add the variables “sbc” after “0.3” in the equation.
247. Joe Ferzli (CKC), 457 7 Add the exception to 18.4.3.3(c) that equations (c) and (f) in Agree.
Jason Thome (CKC) Table 18.7.5.4 are not required to be satisfied for columns that During the ACI 318-14 code cycle, the addition of equations (c)
falls under the category of “Members not designated as part of and (f) in Table 18.7.5.4 was intended to apply to special moment

102 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
the seismic-force-resisting system” such as gravity columns frame columns. If one does not check the moments and shears
even when induced moments and shear are not induced by design drift or if the moments and shears are above
checked/satisfied. the capacities, then it is appropriate to detail the column per full
seismic frame column provisions including new equations (c) and
(f). So, there should be no change to 18.14.3.3(c).
However, if one does check induced moments and shears under
design drift, and they are less than capacities, then equations (c)
and (f) should not apply as these are only needed to obtain drift
capacities of up to 0.03 – (see commentary to 18.7.5.4).
Therefore, 18.14.3.2 (c) should be adjusted with the yellow
highlights below (Note, the non-yellow strikeout and underline
were part of ballot CH 014):
(c) Columns with factored gravity axial forces exceeding
0.35Po shall satisfy 18.14.3.2(b) and 18.7.5.7. The minimum
amount of transverse reinforcement provided shall be, for
rectilinear hoops, at least one-half the greater of Table
18.7.5.4 parts (a) and (b) and, for spiral or circular hoops, one-
half the greater of Table 18.7.5.4 parts (d) and (e). of that
required by Table 18.7.5.4 (a), (b), (d), and (e) and spacing
shall not exceed so for the full column length and This
transverse reinforcement shall be provided over a length lo, as
defined in 18.7.5.1, from each joint face.

248. Amin Ghali and 458 18 To resist flexure-induced punching in an earthquake, verify Disagree.
Ramez Gayed As,min according to 8.6.1.2. 8.6.1.2, if applicable, needs to be satisfied when designing the slab
for gravity loads. The provisions of Chapter 18 are in addition to
On page 458, line 18, insert a new 18.14.5.4: those in Chapter 8. Thus, no change is needed.
18.14.5.4 Verify As,min requirement in 8.6.1.2 to resist flexure-
induced punching.
103 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
249. Andres Lepage 466 4 A reference to tests of coupling beams (Weber-Kamin et al. 2019) Agree.
is missing on Page 466, Line 4. In addition, the reference to 1) Modify the language of page 466. Lines 1 to 4 as shown
Kabeyasawa needs to be deleted (as indicated on Page 900, Line in the paragraph at the left that appears in quotes.
25). Rewrite sentence in Lines 1 through 4 using: 2) Add the correct citation to the references list, as
indicated by the comments to page 919, Line 9.
“The increases to 80,000 psi and 100,000 psi for shear design of
some special seismic system members is based on research
indicating the design shear strength can be developed (Sokoli and
Ghannoum 2016; Kabeyasawa and Hiraishi, 1998; Aoyama, 2001;
Budek et al. 2002; Cheng et al. 2016, ; Huq et al. 2018; Weber-
Kamin et al. 2019).”

The proper citation to Weber-Kamin et al. (2019) is included in


Comments to Page 919, Line 9.

250. ACI Staff 480 16 Through line 22: Agree.


Delete section R18.8.3.4 Delete all lines of section R18.8.3.4
251. Saman Abdullah 486 18 This paragraph, lines 18-22, should be deleted. See CH09 Agree.
approved in Dallas. Delete the sentence “-Vu shall be obtained…factored load
combinations.” From lines 14 and 15. Leave the words “Design
forces” as an italicized heading in line 14.

In addition, modify commentary section R18.10.3 as follows:


R18.10.3 Design forces—Design shears for structural walls are
obtained from lateral load analysis with the appropriate load
factors. However, tThe possibility of yielding in components of
such structures structural walls should be considered, as in the
portion of a wall between two window openings, in which case the
actual shear may be in excess of the shear indicated by lateral load
analysis based on factored design forces.
252. Karl Pennings 488 7 In section R18.10.4 the definition of coupling beam is vague in Partially agree.
the commentary and not addressed in the body of the code. It This comment should be considered as new business in the next
is my understanding that the requirements of 18.10.7 apply to code cycle.
coupling beams but not horizontal wall segments. For
instance, what would be required if you have an isolated door
104 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
opening in a wall with several stories of shear wall above the
door, such that it is very deep with low shear values. It is
impractical to reinforce that wall segment as a special moment
frame and it is impractical to add diagonal bar groups.
253. Saman Abdullah 489 22 Add subscript “cs” to hw. Also, on page 489 line 24. Agree.
Make the changes indicated.
254. Saman Abdullah 490 5 Change year to 2019 (i.e., Abdullah and Wallace (2019)). It will Agree.
be published in the January 2019 issue of ACI St. Journal. This Change year to 2019.
was confirmed with ACI St. Journal.
255. Restrepo J.I. and 490 7 We suggest: Disagree.
Rodriguez M.E. “…. and δu/hwcs δc/hwcs of approximately 1.0 and 0.015 0.0225, The introduction to this equation clearly states the relationship
respectively” between delta_c and dulta_u (capacity must be greater than 1.5 x
demand). It would not be appropriate to use a displacement
Reason: capacity here; instead, it should be based on demand. The
The reason is that R18.10.6.2 in line 7 reads that parameter b following change clarifies this intention.
was derived from Equation (18.10.6.2b) and this Equation uses Change lines 6 to 8 as follows (changes from “Public Comment
δc/hwcs not δu/hwcs. Draft” are highlighted in yellow:

The expression for b in (ii) is derived from 18.10.6.2(b)(iii)


(Equation 18.10.6.2b), assuming values of Vu/(8Acv√f’c) and δu/hwcs
of approximately 1.0 and 0.015, respectively.

256. Andrew Taylor 491 21 I believe the figure reference should be to Fig. R18.10.6.4.2. Agree.
This is because the variables used in this sentence are defined Change figure reference to R18.10.6.4.2.
in that figure.
257. Saman Abdullah 491 27 This sentence “Requirements for vertical extensions of Agree.
boundary elements are summarized in Fig. R.18.10.6.4.3 Replace the sentence “Requirements for vertical extensions of
(Moehle et al., 2011)” should not be removed. It should be boundary elements are summarized in Fig. R.18.10.6.4.3 (Moehle
added back in page 492 after line 11 (See CH011). et al., 2011)” and move it to page 492 after line 11 (See CH011).
258. Andrew Taylor 491 28 (This comment relates to Wallace’s public comment number Agree.
16). If lines 27 and 28 are reinstated, I believe the figure Change the figure reference to Fig. R18.10.6.4.3
reference should be changed to Fig. R18.10.6.4.3

105 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
259. Saman Abdullah 491 31 “web vertical bars” is used on Fig. R18.10.6.4.1, but the figure Agree.
caption uses “web longitudinal bars”. Should Vertical be Change “vertical” to “longitudinal”
changed to longitudinal to be consistent, which would also be
consistent with use of rho_l.
260. Andrew Taylor 491 31 The word “vertical” should be changed to “longitudinal” Agree.
Change “vertical” to “longitudinal”
261. Saman Abdullah 492 1 Change to year to 2018 (i.e., Segura and Wallace, 2018) Agree. Change made.
Change year to 2018.
262. David P. Gustafson 492 6 Replace “carrying capacity” with “strength”. Disagree. The committee feels “carrying capacity” is clearer.
No change.
263. Saman Abdullah 492 20 Change Fig. R18.10.6.4.1 to Fig. R18.10.6.4.2 Agree.
Change Fig. R18.10.6.4.1 to Fig. R18.10.6.4.2
264. Restrepo J.I. and 492 20 Please consider this change: Agree.
Rodriguez M.E. …illustrated in Fig. R18.10.6.4.12 Change Fig. R18.10.6.4.1 to Fig. R18.10.6.4.2
265. Restrepo J.I. and 492 30 Please consider this change: Agree. However, line reference is 31, not 30.
Rodriguez M.E. “… summarized in Fig. R18.10.6.4.23” Change figure reference to R18.10.6.4.3 in line 31
266. Andrew Taylor 492 31 I believe the figure reference should be to Fig. R18.10.6.4.3 Agree.
Change figure reference to R18.10.6.4.3
267. Thomas Schaeffer 502 15 Need to add the heading for the section “R18.13.4 Foundation Agree.
Seismic Ties” Add the heading for the section “R18.13.4 Foundation Seismic
Ties”
268. Thomas Schaeffer 503 19 R1.4.5 should be R1.4.7 Agree.
The commentary will be revised to:
…..guidelines (refer to R1.4.57)
269. Thomas Schaeffer 504 20 Add Heading “R18.13.5.8 Metal-cased concrete piles” Agree.
Add Heading “R18.13.5.8 Metal-cased concrete piles”
270. Thomas Schaeffer 504 24 Add Heading “R18.13.5.9 Concrete filled pipe piles” Agree.
Add Heading “R18.13.5.9 Concrete filled pipe piles”
271. Thomas Schaeffer 505 0 Add Heading “R18.13.5.10 Precast concrete piles” Agree.
Add Heading “R18.13.5.10 Precast concrete piles”
272. Thomas Schaeffer 505 22 Add Heading “R18.13.6 Anchorage of piles, piers, and caissons” Agree.
Add Heading “R18.13.6 Anchorage of piles, piers, and caissons”

106 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
273. Amin Ghali and 507 27 To design for flexure-induced punching in an earthquake, Disagree.
Ramez Gayed calculate As,min based on vu,max corresponding to the design story 8.6.1.2, if applicable, needs to be satisfied when designing the slab
drift ratio; this applies to all components moving through the for gravity loads. The provisions of Chapter 18 are in addition to
same drift. On page 507, line 27, insert R18.14.5.4. those in Chapter 8. Thus, no change is needed

R18.14.5.4 To design for flexure-induced punching in an


earthquake, calculate As,min based on vu,max corresponding to the
design story drift ratio.
274. Restrepo J.I. and 514 6 Fig. R18.7.5.2 should show seismic hooks for consistency with Disagree.
Rodriguez M.E. suggested change given in this discussion regarding 18.7.5.2 in Subcommittee H has considered the need to provide seismic
page 420, line 28, suggesting the use of seismic hooks in hooks at both ends of cross ties in columns of special moment
building columns designated as part of the seismic-resisting frames with low axial loads and concluded this is not required.
system. Cross ties with seismic hooks at both ends are required, though,
for columns with high axial loads.
No change
275. Saman Abdullah 518 1 Fig. R18.10.6.4.1(a) shows l1<2bc, whereas (b) shows l1≤2bc. Agree.
They should use the same symbol (probably use “≤” for both). In Fig. R18.10.6.4.1(a) change l1<2bc, to l1≤2bc

276. Saman Abdullah 518 1 Change to “(b) Overlapping hoops…”. Since there is more than Agree.
one hoop, the word hoop should be plural. In Figure R18.10.6.4.1(b) change “Overlapping hoop” to
“Overlapping hoops”
277. Andrew Taylor 518 1 The version of Fig. R18.10.6.4.1 that appears in the public Agree.
comment version of the Chapter 18 commentary was revised Replace the figure in the “Public Comment” draft with the revised
at the 318 Main Committee Dallas meeting. The horizontal figure approved at the December 2018 meeting in Dallas.
web bars (green) should have hooks at the left end in both
figures (a) and (b), and the horizontal web bars in figure (a)
should be located inside the longitudinal web reinforcement,
as in figure (b).
278. Reid W. Castrodale 527 16 19.2.1.1 Disagree. Since the terms “normalweight” and “lightweight”
Part (a) of this section states “Limits apply to both appeared in the Table in 318-14 and are removed from the Table
normalweight and lightweight concrete.” This is understood. in 318-19, the statement in the provision that the “Limits apply to
Therefore, the statement is unnecessary and just draws both normalweight and lightweight concrete” is warranted.
attention to an unneeded distinction between normalweight
and lightweight concrete. No change required.
107 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

Therefore, it is proposed that the sentence be deleted.


279. Dr. Fariborz 527 22 The toughness criteria for lightweight concrete with strengths Agree
Tehrani, PE exceeding 5 ksi is not clear. This should be taken up as new business..

280. Reid W. Castrodale 527 22 19.2.1.1 Agree


Part (d) of this section indicates that lightweight concrete This should be taken up as new business..
strengths exceeding 5 ksi can be used if “demonstrated by
experimental evidence that members … provide strength and
toughness equal to or exceeding those of comparable
members made with normalweight concrete of the same
strength.”

Where are toughness criteria given?

The goal for lightweight concrete is to provide strength equal


to or greater than the strength expected in the code for a
normalweight concrete with the same compressive strength,
not just the strength of some normalweight concrete. This is a
significant difference. Furthermore, some normalweight
concrete will not meet the standards of strength expected in
the code, but use of those materials is not restricted, nor is
their capacity reduced in design.

Concrete simply needs to meet the specified performance


regardless of material designation. The problem is to define the
required performance criteria that can be measured in simple
ways rather than from large-scale component testing.

Therefore, the text in (d) needs to be revised as proposed:


“… toughness equal to or exceeding the code requirements for
comparable members made with normalweight concrete of the
same compressive strength.”

108 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
281. Dan Mullins 528 1 Lines 3 and 4 of table. “utility” is not defined. What does this Agree with comment. In order to eliminate the ambiguity and to
mean? Does this refer to IBC “Utility and Miscellaneous Group be consistent with the latest edition of the IBC, the IBC terms
U”? Is a reference needed for clarity? “use and occupancy classification” will be added in Table after
“residential and utility”

In the 3rd row under the heading of Table 19.2.1.1 revise the
application to:

Foundations for rResidential and


uUtility use and occupancy classification with stud bearing wall
construction two stories or less assigned to SDC D, E, or F

In the 4th row under the heading of Table 19.2.1.1, there is also a
typo repeating the SDC’s. Revise the application to:

Foundations for structures assigned to SDC D, E, or F other than


rResidential and uUtility use and occupancy classification with
stud bearing wall construction two stories or less., assigned to
SDC D, E, or F
282. HOLCIM MEXICO 528 6 Through line 13 and page 529 lines 1 through 10 Not accepted. No changes.
1. The changes in 19.2.2 allow the LDP to test for MOE with
Currently, in section 19.2.2 Elasticity Module says: project materials, if desired.
19.2.2.1 It is allowed to calculate the modulus of elasticity, Ec, 2. This recommendation should be referred to ACI 363 for review
for the concrete by means of (a) or (b): and possible action.

a) For values of wc between 90 and 160 lb/ft³

(in psi) (19.2.2.1.a)


b) For normalweight concrete

Ec = 57,000 (in psi) (19.2.2.1.b)

109 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Therefore, we suggest the following consideration as a criterion
of acceptance of the Elasticity Module, since the regional
availability of the different aggregates used in the concrete, has
become critical in the current era as well the transfer of the
same at great distances is complex and very expensive, so we
propose that you take the example of the characteristic base
values of the “NTC 2017 (Complementary Technical Standards
2017) Design and Construction of Concrete Structures of the
Construction Regulations of Mexico City”. A proposal is
described below:

19.2.2 Elasticity Module

The static elastic modulus of the structural concrete will be


determined according to the coarse aggregates available in the
region.
The modulus of elasticity is allowed to be calculated with the
following expressions, for concrete of normal weight (Wc ≥ 140
lb / ft³).

For concrete with nominal compressive strength f'c ≤ 35 Mpa:


Ec = 4 400 (in MPa) for coarse aggregate of limestone
(19.2.2.1.a)
Ec = 3 500 (in MPa) for coarse basaltic aggregate
(19.2.2.1.b)
For concrete with nominal compressive strength f'c > 35 Mpa:
Ec = 2 500 (in MPa) 19.2.2.1.c
Other values of Ec that are sufficiently supported by laboratory
results can be used. In problems of structural revision of existing
constructions, the modulus of elasticity determined in concrete
specimens extracted from the structure can be applied, which
form a representative sample of the same.

110 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
283. Dr. Fariborz 529 18 Numerous publications have found values in Table 19.2.4.1 and Not accepted. No change.
Tehrani, PE Table 19.2.4.2 to be conservative (Fang et al. Int J Concr Struct
Mater 2018, 12:55 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-018-0274-
3; and many others). There is no argument that the estimated value of lambda will, in
many cases, be conservative using either Table 19.2.4.1 or Table
Further, there are evidences from recent research that 19.2.4.2. Both techniques for estimating lambda are provided as
performance of lightweight concrete in respect to strength, generally conservative methods for selecting a value of lambda
drift, and absorbed energy can be higher than normal weight for a given mixture proportion. If the LDP wishes to determine a
concrete (Carrillo et al. Engrg Struct 2015, 93:61-69 more accurate value of lambda, the commentary in Section
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.03.022; Øverli Engrg R19.2.4 offers guidance.
Struct 2017, 151:821-838
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.08.063; and many The new method for determining lambda specified in 19.2.4.1,
others). while based on equilibrium density, is rooted in the testing of
1249 different specimens using multiple mixture proportions
These findings indicate that performance of concrete is not just incorporating 14 different lightweight aggregates. Thus, the new
a function of the density, as proposed in historic publications method considers far more than just equilibrium density.
(Ivey and Buth 1967; Hanson 1961; Mattock 1977 and others),
and thus, there is a need for revising lambda values for both Lambda does not apply to normalweight concrete as is implied in
lightweight and normal weight concrete. the comment.

This comment should be referred to ACI 213 for review and


possible action.
284. Reid W. Castrodale 529 21 19.2.4.1 Not accepted. No changes.
The proposed text related to Table 19.2.4.2 indicates that the While "composition" may not the best word, its meaning is
value of lambda is “… based on the composition of the evident when considering the entries in Table 19.2.4.2.
aggregate in the concrete mixture assumed in design.”

I question use of the “composition”, which seems to imply the


material composition of the aggregate itself, where what is
actually intended is the type of mixture which depends on the
proportions of the aggregate materials in the concrete mixture
(which, as already stated, the designer will very rarely ever
know).

111 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

The use of “type” rather than “composition” is recommended.


285. Reid W. Castrodale 529 26 Table 19.2.4.1 Discussed extensively at Steering Committee Meeting. No
Each line in the table has a letter associated with it in the changes for this cycle. New Business.
rightmost column, which would appear to indicate a note
would follow that would define these letters. However, no such
note is given.

This should be corrected as appropriate.


286. Colin Lobo 530 6 The Committee has provided a rational method for the Not accepted. No change.
designer to assume a value of λ when designing lightweight
structural members based on the equilibrium density. After significant discussion, Committee 318 adopted CA111 based
Retaining Table 19.2.4.2 is not necessary. The commentary upon keeping this approach in the code.
acknowledges that the designer does not have any idea of
using this table as they do not know the composition of
aggregates that will be used at this stage in the design. The
only possible outcome is to use a conservative value of 0.75
that impacts the cost of lightweight concrete construction. This
table for selecting the value of λ should be removed so that its
use can be avoided.
287. Robinson 530 6 This table wrongly assumes the designer will know the mixture See response to comment 286, page 530, line 6, Lobo
proportions to achieve the specified density.
288. Reid W. Castrodale 530 6 Table 19.2.4.2 See response to comment 284, page 529, line 21, Castrodale
As mentioned in earlier comment (p. 529 line 21), use of
“composition” in the caption and a heading for Table 19.2.4.2
is misleading.

Please revise as discussed previously.


289. Reid W. Castrodale 530 6 Table 19.2.4.2 See response to comment 286, page 530, line 6, Lobo
In my opinion, inclusion of this table is misguided. The designer
does not know, except in very rare cases, what the proportions
of aggregate volumes in the concrete will be to achieve the

112 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
specified density. And to think that interpolation could be used
effectively is also misguided.

I strongly recommend that defining lambda based on the


proportions of aggregate in concrete be removed from the
specifications.
290. Reid W. Castrodale 530 11 Table 19.2.4.2 Change code last line in Note 2 to read: “…as a fraction of the
The text in Note 2 is incomplete. total absolute volume of aggregate.” Editorial change.
291. Reid W. Castrodale 530 13 19.2.4.3 Not accepted. No changes.
In ACI 318-11 and prior issues, an option was allowed to specify 1. The equation in 318-11 was not correct because the use of f’c
the splitting tensile strength of lightweight concrete to define is not reasonable. Any such testing should be done on project
the value of lambda. This recognized the very real possibility specific materials. To say that this approach is more accurate is
that the tensile strength of lightweight concrete could have a not correct.
tensile strength greater than the reduced values that were 2. If the LDP wishes to determine a more accurate value of
provided as a simplified lower bound for the behavior of lambda for a given mixture proportion by means of laboratory
lightweight concrete. The provision in Article 8.6.1 read: testing, the commentary in Section R19.2.4 offers guidance on
how to do so.
If average splitting tensile strength of lightweight concrete, As a matter of record, during the eight years it took to bring this
fct, is specified, lambda = fct / (6.7 sqrt f’c) <= 1.0. ballot item to pass 318 Main, only one engineer indicated he had
ever used this technique—and the project was never built!
In ACI 318-14, the wording in the renumbered article 19.2.4.3 3. it is preferred that the designer not specify splitting tensile
was changed to something much less understandable and strength (as per 318-11) as there are no criteria or detailed
useful: requirements on how and where to test this.

If the measured average splitting tensile strength of


lightweight concrete, fct, is used to calculate lambda,
laboratory tests shall be conducted in accordance with
ASTM C330 to establish the value of fct and the
corresponding value of fcm and lambda shall be calculated
by:
Lambda = fct / (6.7 sqrt f’cm) <= 1.0
The concrete mixture tested in order to calculate lambda
shall be representative of that to be used in the Work.

113 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

This approach is very confusing and unclear when compared to


the simply stated requirement of earlier editions. If the
designer desired, the effect of lambda could be eliminated (set
equal to one) by simply specifying the tensile strength of the
lightweight concrete to be greater than the tensile strength
expected in the code for normalweight concrete.

In the proposed ACI 318-19, this option is removed entirely.


Therefore, this eliminates any option to allow use of a larger
value of lambda, even when the tensile strength can be
demonstrated to be equal to or greater than the expected
tensile strength of lightweight concrete of 6.7 sqrt f’c.

My recommendation is to return to the provisions of ACI 318-


11, which are supported by considerable data that indicate that
lightweight concrete can indeed have tensile strengths equal to
or exceeding the strength expected for normalweight concrete,
and allow the designer the freedom to modify the lambda
factor accordingly.
292. Eric Koehler 532 7 In Table 19.3.2.1, for S3 Option 2, permissible ASTM C595 Partially accepted. Editorial change to Code.
cements should be “Types with (HS) designation” and not “IP, Change Table for S3, option 2 to read:
IS or IT” to be consistent with other S exposures. As written, “Types with (HS) Designation”
the Table does not allow Type IL cement in S3 Option 2. In
addition, the commentary on page 550 line 8 indicates that all Portion of comment regarding
ASTM C595 blends are suitable, including Type IL, so the table Commentary is New Business.
is not consistent with the commentary. Type IL cement under
ASTM C595 can be demonstrated to achieve HS designation in
accordance with ASTM C1012 and, therefore, provide
necessary durability. Type IL with (HS) could pass as an ASTM
C1157 cement or based on Note 4. The commentary is correct
and the table should be revised.

114 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
293. Colin Lobo 532 7 This revision refers the designer to consider alkali aggregate Not accepted. No changes.
reactions for structural members assigned to exposure class If ACI 301 wants to have a simplified approach, that is fine for
W1 and W2. The designer is directed to consider using ASTM that document.
C1778. This guide is rather complicated and arriving at a single
reasonable approach applicable to a local region will be Editorial change: The additional requirements for W1 and W2
elusive. ACI 301 has proposed requirements for AAR based on should reference 26.4.2.2(d).
ASTM C1778. Consider including a reference to ACI 301 in the
commentary either here or in Ch 26.
294. Mark W 533 0 T19.3.2.1: Suggest adding brief commentary as to why New business.
Cunningham admixtures containing calcium chloride are prohibited for S2
and S3. Committee response to similar comment made on the
318-14 update was: “The restriction to the use of calcium
chloride admixture is based on research performed by the
USBR documenting that these admixtures had an adverse
effect on sulfate resistance.” Can this or similar statement be
included in the commentary?
295. Tennis 533 0 Table 19.3.2.1, S3 Option 1 under ASTM C595: Accept. Editorial change.
For S3 conditions, Option 1, for ASTM C595 cements, it appears
that Footnote [7] should be referenced, rather than Footnote Correct footnote references for C150 and C595 to [7]
[6]
296. Eric Koehler 533 1 The word “basefallowd” is a typo. Accept. Change to read: “The w/cm is based …”
297. Colin Lobo 533 1 Correct typo in footnote 1 See response to comment 296. Page 533, line 1, Koehler
298. John Gajda 533 1 There is a typo: “basefallowed” should be changed to “based”. See response to comment 296. Page 533, line 1, Koehler
299. Mark W 533 1 Fix typo: “basefallowd”. See response to comment 296. Page 533, line 1, Koehler
Cunningham
300. Tennis 533 1 The word “basefallowd” in footnote [1] needs to be edited. It See response to comment 296. Page 533, line 1, Koehler
appears that it should be “based”
301. Robinson 533 3 Note 2 of Table 19.3.2.1 is not justified. If the free moisture of New business.
the (lightweight and/or normalweight) aggregates is
determined and the mix water is adjusted to compensate, any
water absorbed by any aggregate during mixing and delivery
reduces the w/cm ratio. It does not increase it. The
commentary states the mixing water absorbed by the

115 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
lightweight aggregate “makes calculation of w/cm uncertain”,
and ignores the fact that this only decreases the w/cm ratio,
providing assurance that the maximum w/cm ratio has not
been exceeded. Making specifying maximum w/cm ratio limits
for lightweight concrete possible. Maximum w/cm ratio limits
are routinely specified for lightweight concrete used in
transportation structures by State DOT’s and their consultants
across the US. Why can’t they be specified for building
structures?
302. Reid W. Castrodale 533 3 Table 19.3.2.1 See response to comment 318, page 547, line 23, Castrodale
See comment for p. 547, lines 23-26.
303. John Cook 533 3 Table 19.3.2.1 New business.
Since It is mentioned that w/cm is difficult to accurately verify
in the field so f'c is specified (page 547 line 9-10), Why is
lightweight singled out in note 2 in relation to w/cm. Shouldn't
normal weight and lightweight be treated the same in this table?
304. Colin Lobo 534 10 In footnote 9, “mass of cement” is unclear as “cement” is not Accept. Editorial change.
defined or used in ACI 318. It could be misunderstood to mean Change to read “ the mass of the portland cement.”
C595 blended cement. The intent should be mass of portland This was approved as CA170. “portland” was somehow omitted
cement. Consider revising the footnote. since approval
305. Reid W. Castrodale 534 16 19.3.3.1 Accept. Editorial change.
Recommended revision: “Normalweight and lightweight Delete ”Normalweight and lightweight”. Start provision with:
concrete Concrete subject …” There is no reason to mention “Concrete subject…”
the two types.
306. Colin Lobo 534 24 Concrete subject to cycles of freezing and thawing will be Not accepted. See commentary for discussion of why dry-mix
impacted by this exposure and it doesn’t seem appropriate shotcrete is treated differently.
that structural members constructed using dry-mix shotcrete
does not have to be air entrained for exposure class F1 and F2,
which can be an exterior wall or slab. Consider limiting the use
of dry-mix shotcrete to repair type applications where it is
typically used.
307. John Cook 535 17 19.3.3.6 Accept. Substantive change.
States for f'c greater than 5000 reduction of air content indicated 1. There is currently no gray area.
in Table 19.3.3.1 and 19.3.3.3 by 1.0 percentage point is
116 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
permitted. This leaves gray area. Greater than or equal to 5000 2. Most designers probably assume that concrete with f’c of
would clarify. 5000 psi is eligible for the 1% reduction, which is incorrect.
3. Rewrite as: “For f’c ≥ 5000 psi…”
308. John Gajda 535 21 Add that running and passing a deicer scaling test can be used While we do not agree that ASTM C672 should be used as a basis
to permit SCMs higher than in the referenced table. Reference for accepting or qualifying concrete, we do agree that provisions
ASTM C672. for limits on SCM’s should be reviewed as New Business.

In the commentary, the findings of research by Doug Hooton


should be discussed (see PDF link below), and reference other
deicer scaling methods. Alternatively, discuss allowing the use
28 or 56 days of curing under Section 7.3 of the 2012 version of
C672, which is appropriate for higher SCM content concretes as
they tend to gain strength more slowly than plain cement
concretes for which C672 was developed.

This change also needs to be added to:


1) page 548, Line 7
2) page 786, Line 22
3) page 788, line 24

The rationale is:


1) Many agencies use the referenced table (Table
26.4.2.2.b) as if it were gospel, and do not allow
greater SCM that in the tables. They say ACI 318 is the
building code and cannot be violated.
2) Many projects with a specified long service life period,
such as the TappanZee bridge have shown, through
deicer scaling testing that concrete with higher SCM
levels do not have issues in the F3 exposure condition.
While ACI 318 may not be intended to apply to such
projects, it is still used on such projects.
3) Research by ACI 318 subcommittee member, Dr. Doug
Hooton, have showed that concretes with higher SCM

117 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
levels do not have issues in deicer scaling tests (or in
the real world), and that certain deicer scaling tests
are more harsh than real world conditions. Here is an
overview of his research (on the ACI website):
https://www.concrete.org/portals/0/files/pdf/webina
rs/Hooton-Doug.pdf
4) Language for the S3 sulfate exposure condition allow
specific test results to permit deviations from the
requirements. This is in the new discussion on page
548 and in the footnotes of Table 19.3.2.1.
5) Added language for the modulus of elasticity
requirements allows deviation based on testing of the
concrete. Test permits deviation from the standard
57,000 multiplier in the equation relating compressive
strength to modulus.
309. Holland 536 7 19.4.1 At the end of the provision: …”measured by mass of Accept. Editorial change. Change to read “…mass of cement
chloride ion to mass of cement.” Chloride limits were changed cementitious materials.”
to mass of cementitious materials by CA070. This provision
was apparently missed.
310. Reid W. Castrodale 537 22 R19.2.1 Accept as editorial change.
Editorial: add a space between 80,000 and psi.
311. Colin Lobo 538 8 I am not sure if these values of properties stated can actually Partially accepted. Editorial change.
be “observed”. Suggest simplifying this to “differences Change “observed” to “measured.”
between measured and calculated values of Ec. This is more
relevant to the discussion regarding the accuracy of assuming a Comment on redundancy is not accepted. Redundancy to be
value of Ec. Some of this seems to be redundant with the next looked at as new business.
paragraph – lines 19 – 25.
312. Reid W. Castrodale 539 12 Through page 541 line 6: This definition was revised multiple times on multiple ballots
R19.2.4 before being accepted by 318.
Every lightweight concrete mixture does not have “reduced Recommend these comments be submitted to ACI 213 for review
mechanical properties” when compared with normal weight and recommendation to ACI 318.
concrete of the same compressive strength as is communicated
by the statement in the commentary. The second sentence
continues: “For design using lightweight concrete, shear
118 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
strength, [etc.] are not taken as equivalent to normalweight
concrete of the same compressive strength.”

There are several issues that must be addressed here, some of


which are not new to the revisions in the current edition of ACI
318, but have been long-standing problems with how
lightweight concrete is treated by the code.

The first is that the factor should apply only to tensile


properties, not mechanical properties in general. The list
provided later in the paragraph only lists tensile-related
properties. The factor certainly does not apply to compressive
strength, or to the modulus of elasticity which is treated
separately with the density appearing as a variable in the
equation.

The second is that this flatly states that the mechanical


properties of normal of lightweight concrete are reduced
compared to normal weight concrete. This is not a true
statement. In fact, the statement is made in the 2nd edition of
Mark Fintel’s Handbook of Concrete Engineering (1985) that
“the tensile strengths of continuously moist-cured lightweight
and normal-weight concretes of equal compressive strength
are equal.” That discussion continues to mention that even
with drying, lightweight concrete can still achieve tensile
strengths equal to normal weight concrete. More current
information also shows this as discussed below.

The third issue is that the comparison being made should be to


what is expected for normalweight concrete, that is, the tensile
strength used or expected in the design of the member, not
just any comparison of lightweight concrete properties to some
normalweight concrete. This distinction is very important

119 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
because the properties of normalweight concrete mixtures
vary widely. Tests by Byard and Schindler (2010) report that
the normalweight concrete mixture tested had a reduced
tensile strength compared to both what was expected for a
normalweight concrete mixture and to the lightweight
concrete mixtures tested, which used three different
lightweight aggregates. In this case, the lightweight concrete
mixtures had tensile strengths very close to or exceeding the
tensile strength expected for a normalweight concrete with the
same compressive strength (6.7 sqrt f’c). However, while the
tensile strength of the normalweight concrete mixture tested
was about 15% less than what is expected for normalweight
concrete, a reduction factor would not be considered
appropriate for design using that concrete, even though its
tensile strength is “deficient” according to the specifications.

Another example appears in Chapman and Castrodale (2016)


where the lightweight concrete mixture discussed did indeed
have a tensile strength that was significantly less than the
normalweight concrete; in fact, the reduction was close to the
usual reduction factor for sand lightweight concrete of 0.85.
However, upon closer examination, it was realized that the
normalweight concrete mixture had a very high tensile
strength, well above what is expected of normalweight
concrete. It was then found that the lightweight concrete
actually comfortably exceeded the expected tensile strength
for normalweight concrete.

A proposed revision is:

The modification factor lambda is used to account for the


potentially reduced tensile strength of lightweight concrete
compared to the expected tensile strength of normalweight

120 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
concrete. For design using lightweight concrete, the lambda
factor provides the means to reduce shear strength, [etc.] to
account for the possible reduction in the tensile strength of
lightweight compared to the expected tensile strength of
normalweight concrete of the same compressive strength.

References:
Byard, B., Schindler, A.: “Cracking tendency of lightweight
concrete,” Highway Research Center, Auburn, Alabama. (2010)
Chapman, D., Castrodale, R. “Sand lightweight concrete for
prestressed concrete girders in three Washington State
bridges,” Proceedings, National Bridge Conference,
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago. (2016)
313. Reid W. Castrodale 539 22 R19.2.4 Accept. Editorial change.
Recommend revising sentence: “…if the designer desires to
determine a more precise accurate value of [lambda] …” The definition of accurate is “closer to the correct value” which is
more appropriate in this situation.
However, I think that this sentence should probably be
removed if the option to determine a more accurate value of Change “precise” to “accurate.”
lambda is removed as is currently proposed.
Second part of this comment is not accepted. The sentence
provides guidance should the designer choose to pursue
laboratory testing to determine a more “accurate” value of
lambda.
314. Reid W. Castrodale 539 23 R19.2.4 New business.
The proposed commentary states “Table 19.2.4.1 is based on
data from tests …”

I do not think that this is an accurate statement of the


situation. The expression was developed based on limits of
concrete density (100 pcf for all lightweight concrete and 135
pcf for the bottom of the range for normalweight concrete)
and the existing factors of 0.75 and 1.0 at these limits. The

121 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
expression thus established was then compared to the data to
see if it adequately represented the data, which it did.

Recommended revision: “The limits and expression shown in


Table 19.2.4.1 was developed based on the accepted range of
the modification factor and corresponding densities. The
expression was then compared to data from tests …”
315. Reid W. Castrodale 539 28 R19.2.4 Accept this comment. Change Commentary to read: “…which is
Recommend revising sentence: “…[lambda] which remains is retained…”
retained from the previous code,”
316. Reid W. Castrodale 540 9 R19.2.4 Not accepted. No change.
Recommend revising sentence: “… was removed from the Code
in 2019. However, this method is what would be used to This wording is already in the commentary on page 539, line 21
determine a more accurate value for [lambda], as noted
previously.”

A new paragraph should also begin following this sentence.


317. Reid W. Castrodale 540 17 Through line 22: Delete lines 17 through 22 on page 540 of the commentary to
R19.2.4 eliminate redundancy.
Much of the content of this paragraph is already presented in
previous paragraphs. Therefore, it appears that it could be
deleted.
318. Reid W. Castrodale 547 23 Through line 26 New business.
R19.3.2
The footnote to the table and this discussion which contend
that w/cm limits do not apply to lightweight concrete do not
reflect current common practice, where lightweight aggregate
is prewetted prior to batching so there is little loss of mix water
into the aggregate. As a result, the w/cm can be reliably used
for proportioning lightweight concrete mixtures.

Therefore, it is recommended that the footnote be removed.


The commentary could state that the use of the w/cm values in

122 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
the table for proportioning lightweight concrete mixtures
assumes prewetting of the lightweight aggregate prior to
batching.
319. ACI Staff – Via 556 1 Through line 4: Something is amiss. There are no Accept. Editorial change.
Holland corresponding Code requirements (19.3.4 was deleted in R19.3.4 should have been omitted as part of CA190. Delete as a
CA190). Please verify what should be done with these substantive change.
commentary sections from 318-14. Should they be deleted or
moved to another part of the commentary?
320. Todd Hawkinson, 558 4 Revise the lowest deformed wire size to D1.4 as wires as small Disagree
PE as D1.4 are being manufactured now.
No change. Test data providing the basis for the development and
lap splice provisions as included in Chapter 25 do not include wire
diameters as small as D1.4. Provisions cannot be extended to
include wire sizes outside of the range used to calibrate them.

321. Paul Aubee 558 8 20.2.1.7.3 New business.

Comment and Rationale:


ACI 318 indicates that bond/development of welded deformed
wire reinforcement (WDWR) can be quantified as a
combination of (a) contribution from deformed wire surface
and (b) the presence of strategically positioned welded
intersections. But it also allows for a sole reliance on the
former in the event there exists a misalignment/absence of the
latter.

At issue is the prescriptive spacing provision for WDWR in


Section 20.2.1.7.3(a).

In a flexural or direct axial tension application, this section


effectively discourages designer reliance on deformed wire
surface only when said wires are part of a WDWR mat, as it
prescriptively dictates that welded intersecting “crosswires”

123 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
perpendicular to the direction of stress/development must be
present on the mat in an arrangement not exceeding 16-inch
spacing. This despite the designer’s intent that these crossing
wires be non-contributing from a structural perspective in the
direction under consideration.

ACI 318 provides throughout its text for a broad range of sizes
of non-welded, “loose” deformed wire (i.e., the constituent
component of WDWR) to be treated in a manner identical to
that of conventional loose deformed reinforcing bar from a
bond/development/lap splice standpoint. This equivalent
treatment is further supported by Sections 25.4.6.4 and
25.5.3.1.1, where a WDWR mat itself is permitted to default to
the use of “no contribution from welded intersection” tension
development lengths and lap splice lengths when the
positioning of welded intersecting wires on the mat does not
align with conditions described in Sections 25.4.6.3 and
25.5.3.1 (a), respectively.

ACI even illustrates in Figure R25.5.3.1(b) the overhanging


exterior lengths of two WDWR mats overlapping in a manner
identical to loose deformed bar or wire. So, if deformed wire
surface alone is sufficient in a region as critical as a tension lap
splice, why then would the interior “field region” of the WDWR
mat need to have the 16” crosswire spacing requirement
invoked?

As currently worded, Section 20.2.1.7.3(a) suggests that


structural wires on a WDWR mat that are in the direction of
stress are inextricably reliant on prescriptively-spaced
intersecting welded wire intersections in order to be
considered structural viability. Yet conceptually, when those
intersecting welded wires are removed and all that remains are

124 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
loose deformed wires in the direction of stress, the condition is
perfectly viable.

In light of the above information, the technical basis for a 16-


inch prescriptive maximum spacing of welded wire on a WDWR
mat seems tenuous, and the requirement presents as
unnecessarily restrictive for WDWR material that itself would
theoretically trend towards the behavior of loose deformed
wire/bar in those scenarios where positioning of its welded
intersecting wires begins to deviate from the stated
20.2.1.7.3(a) maximum spacing.

There are numerous instances as a designer where one would


want to rely upon deformed wires in the direction of stress.
This same designer might prefer there to be intersecting “non-
structural” welded wires (perpendicular to the direction of
stress) spaced at larger intervals than 16” as a means of on-site
placement expedience and tolerance control.

Proposal:
Section 20.2.1.7.3(a) should be deleted.

The wording of Section 20.2.1.7.3(a) currently mandates


inclusion of prescriptively-spaced wires for WDWR, even in
those instances where a structural design is otherwise
apparently permitted by the same code to disregard such a
contribution.

In the absence of a specific design need (as in item #2 below),


the spacing and positioning of welded intersecting wires on a
WDWR mat should simply be a manufacturer detailing
attribute that must satisfy the production tolerances

125 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
established by ASTM A1064 and the means and methods
considerations of the installer.

Notes:
1. The welded plain wire reinforcement provision of
Section 20.2.1.7.3 remains unchanged.

2. Explicitly defined arrangements in ACI 318 where the


presence of welded intersections is relied upon to
contribute to development or anchorage would
remain unchanged (for example, Section 25.7.1.4
related to non-hooked U-stirrups).

322. Todd Hawkinson, 558 12 PREFERRED:


PE Delete subparagraph (a)., 16 in. for welded deformed wire New business.
reinforcement. Reason, Deformed wire without any spacing
criteria is allowed per ACI 318. There should be no limit set for
Deformed Welded Wire.
OR
Add and Revise 16 in. in subparagraph (a) as follows re-write
“(a) 18 in. for welded wire reinforcement except where
holding wires are utilized.” Reason, this rule is conflicting with
other sections of the code for deformed welded wire.
Specifically, Sections 7.7.2.4 and 24.4.3.3. These sections allow
18 inch spacing of deformed reinforcement. Deformed wire
reinforcement is allowed by this 318-19 and previous codes.
An Overall Reason:
It is the desire of many wire/welded wire manufacturers to
place deformed wire with only minimal holding wires spaced at
greater distances, than 16 or 18 inches. These holding wires
would be in accordance with the requirements of ASTM A1064-
15, Section 8.3.2, where applicable. The holding wire spacing

126 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
would be dependent on placement of that type of
reinforcement.

323. Ted Mize 558 12 Request: Delete “(a) 16 in. for welded deformed wire
reinforcement” in its entirety. Deformed wires used for New business.
reinforcement in the direction of calculated stress, when not
welded into welded deformed wire reinforcement, are
permitted throughout the Code and do not have a 16 in.
spacing limitation. Often, these wires are welded using
“holding” wires simply to hold the spacing and position of the
deformed wires in the direction of the calculated stress. They
are now considered “welded deformed wire reinforcement”
and therefore are subject to the 16 in. spacing limitation of
20.2.1.7.3 (a). Removing this limitation simply eliminates this
inconsistency in the Code. All other limitations on rebar or
deformed wire spacing still apply elsewhere in the Code and no
other sections are affected by this change.
324. Eamonn Connolly 558 25 Through page 560 line 16, and page 573, lines 6 through 7: New Business
In table20.2.2.4a on page558-559 the longitudinal
reinforcement yield strength (fy) limit has changed from 80ksi
to 100ksi. The shear and torsional reinforcement yield strength
(fy) limit has remained unchanged at 60ksi. This means that for
normal shear walls (non-seismic) resisting wind induced lateral
loads (like typically here in Chicago) horizontal reinforcement
with fy>60ksi is not permissible.

I noticed that there is a note in section R20.2.2.4 on page 573


line 6 & 7 that states “The limit of 60,000 psi on the values of fy
and fyt used in design for most shear and torsional
reinforcement is intended to control the width of inclined cracks
under service-level gravity loads.”

127 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Arguably shear wall horizontal reinforcement that is designed
primarily to resist forces due to wind induced lateral loads could
be exempted from the fy=60ski limit since it is not likely to
crack under service level loads and the loads are non-gravity
and transient.

Is it possible to allow fy=80ksi for shear wall horizontal


reinforcement resisting non-gravity loads?

There are economic, constructibility and environmental benefits


to this suggestion.

325. Greg Deierlein 558 25 I find the proposed changes to Table 20.2.2.4a a bit Agreed.
awkward/misleading in that it implies that Gr. 80 and 100 are This is confusing and can be fixed easily.
permitted for A615 in SMF and Special walls, but then the
footnote indicates that Gr. 80/100 are not permitted for A615. I Table 20.2.2.4a will be modified to delete A615[2] from the body
realize it’s tough to squeeze things into a table, but this is of the table. The footnote on A706[2] points to 20.2.2.5 that
confusing, especially given the significance of the change. clarifies where that A615 reinforcement may be used.

Updated Table 20.2.2.4a includes revisions resolving comments


325, 326, 328, and 329.
Maximum value Applicable ASTM specification
of fy or fyt
permitted Welded
for design Deformed Deformed Welded wire deformed
Usage Application calculations, psi bars wires reinforcement bar mats
Special
Flexure; axial moment 80,000
Special frames
force; Not Not
seismic A615[2], A706[2] Not permitted
shrinkage and permitted permitted
systems Special
temperature; structural 100,000
walls[1]

128 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
A615, A706, A955, A1064,
Other 100,000[3] [4] A1064, A1022 A184[5]
A996, A1035 A1022
Special seismic A615, A706, A955, A1064, A1064[6], Not
100,000
Lateral support systems A996, A1035 A1022 A1022[6] permitted
of longitudinal
A615, A706, A955, A1064, Not
bars; or Spirals 100,000 Not permitted
A996, A1035 A1022 permitted
concrete
confinement A615, A706, A955, A1064, Not
Other 80,000 A1064, A1022
A996 A1022 permitted
Special
Special moment 80,000
seismic frames
[8]
A615, A706, A955, A1064, A1064[6], Not
systems[ Special A996 A1022 A1022[6] permitted
7]
structural 100,000
walls[19]
A615, A706, A955, A1064, Not
Spirals 60,000 Not permitted
A996 A1022 permitted
Shear A615, A706, A955, A1064, Not
Shear friction 60,000 A1064, A1022
A996 A1022 permitted
A1064 and
A615, A706, A955, A1064, Not
60,000 A1022
A996, A1035 A1022 permitted
welded plain wire
Stirrups, ties, hoops A1064 and
Not A1022 Not
80,000 Not permitted
permitted welded deformed permitted
wire
Longitudinal and A615, A706, A955, A1064, Not
Torsion 60,000 A1064, A1022
transverse A996 A1022 permitted
Not Not
Special seismic systems 80,000 A615[2], A706[2] Not permitted
permitted permitted

129 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Anchor Other 80,000 A615, A706, A955, A1064, A1064, A1022 A184
reinforcement A996 A1022
Regions Ties used to transfer 60,00080,000 A615, A706, A955, A1064, A1064, A1022 Not
designed using shear Longitudinal A996 A1022 permitted
strut-and-tie ties
method
Other 80,00060,000
[1] All components of special structural walls, including coupling beams and wall piers.

[2] ASTM A615 Grade 60 shall be permitted if requirements of 20.2.2.5(b) are satisfied.
[3]In slabs and beams not part of a special seismic system, bars that pass through or extend from Special Structural Walls shall satisfy 20.2.2.5
[4] Longitudinal reinforcement with fy>80,000 psi is not permitted for intermediate moment frames and ordinary moment frames resisting earthquake demands E.
[5]Welded deformed bar mats shall be permitted to be assembled using A615 or A706 deformed bars of Grade 60 or Grade 80.
[6] ASTM A1064 and A1022 are not permitted in special seismic systems if the weld is required to resist stresses in response to confinement, lateral support of longitudinal bars, shear, or other
actions.
[7] This application also includes shear reinforcement with a maximum value of 80,000 psi fy or fyt permitted for design calculations for diaphragms and foundations for load combinations including
earthquake forces if part of a building with a special seismic system.
[8] Shear reinforcement in this application includes all transverse reinforcement stirrups, ties, hoops, and spirals in special moment frames.
[9] Shear reinforcement in this application includes all transverse reinforcement in special structural walls, coupling beams, and wall piers. Diagonal bars in coupling beams shall comply with ASTM
A706 or footnote 2.

326. Dr. N. 559 0 Through page 560 line 16, example table is pasted at the bottom Agreed. Footnote 8 referring to all transverse reinforcement as
Subramanian (M of comment file: compared to stirrups, ties, and hoops for general shear is
024902) For shear design of "special moment frame" code allows confusing.
fyt=80000 psi (550 Mpa) for all transverse reinforcement as
mentioned in footnote 8 of table 20.2.2.4a. At the same time it Modify footnote 8 of Table 20.3.3.4a with the following editorial
allows only fyt=60000 psi (420 Mpa) for "stirrups,ties,hoops". It change:
is somewhat confusing. “[8] Shear reinforcement in this application includes all transverse
reinforcement stirrups, ties, and hoops, and spirals in special
Also, for lateral support to longitudinal
moment frames.”
bars/concrete confinement in "special moment frame" it allows
fyt=10000 psi (690 MPa).
Agree. Regarding concrete confinement, Table 20.2.2.4a
indicates that grade 100 reinforcement is allowed as transverse
130 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Does it mean that we can take different value of fyt for the reinforcement is allowed as transverse reinforcement in Special
analysis of shear, capacity shear and to decide spacing and Moment Frames with the value of fyt limited to 80,000 psi in the
arrangement of hoops in confined zone based on formula given? design calculations for shear strength. In design calculations for
required amount of confining reinforcement, fyt =100,000 psi is
permitted.

No change required regarding this portion of the comment.

Updated Table 20.2.2.4a includes revisions resolving comments


325, 326, 328, and 329.

327. Dr. N. 559 0 Through page 560 line 16, example table is pasted at the bottom New business. Adding such a table would add clarity.
Subramanian (M of the comment file:
024902) I have summarized the provisions of high strength rebars-See
Table below. Such a table may be added for better clarity
328. Adam Lubell 560 25 In Table 20.2.4a, A1035 is permitted for “Flexure”->”Other” Agreed.
but is not listed under “Shear”->”Stirrup ties hoops”. Given
that the shear case limits fyt to 60ksi, exclusion of A1035 is A1035 can be used as shear reinforcement if the design yield
not justified. The 60ksi limit for fyt is near the proportional strength is taken as 60 ksi.
limit for A1035 Grade 100 steel. Member designed with
A1035 shear reinforcement limited to fyt=60ksi are expected Refer to the portion of the table added in the next cell.
to have similar performance to members designed with A615
or A706 shear reinforcement with the same fyt limit. As
written, this table prevents a designer from using the
combination of A1035 longitudinal reinforcement and A1035
transverse reinforcement that might be desired in members
subjected to aggressive environments.
This is part of Comment 328. Modify Table 20.2.2.4a as follows:

Special
Special A615, A706, A955, A1064, A1064[6], Not
Shear moment 80,000
seismic A996 A1022 A1022[6] permitted
frames[8]

131 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
systems[ Special
7] structural 100,000
walls[19]
A615, A706, A955, A1064, Not
Spirals 60,000 Not permitted
A996 A1022 permitted
A615, A706, A955, A1064, Not
Shear friction 60,000 A1064, A1022
A996 A1022 permitted
A1064 and
A615, A706, A955, A1064, Not
60,000 A1022
A996, A1035 A1022 permitted
welded plain wire
Stirrups, ties, hoops A1064 and
Not A1022 Not
80,000 Not permitted
permitted welded deformed permitted
wire

329. Adam Lubell 560 25 In the last line of Table 20.2.4a, the terminology “Ties used to Agree.
transfer shear” is problematic since a strut and tie model The nomenclature for “Application” has been better delineated in
represents a complete load path that does not distinguish the strut-and-tie section to allow 80,000 psi for longitudinal
between flexure and shear. Is this wording trying to capture reinforcement only. Reference to “transfer shear” in relation to
“Ties that cross inclined struts”? STM has been removed.

Updated Table 20.2.2.4a includes revisions resolving comments


325, 326, 328, and 329.
330. David P. Gustafson 560 27 The current ASTM A706/A706M-16 does not cover Grade 100; Partially Agree.
The specification covers only Grades 60 and 80. Thus:
1. Page 560, Line 27, delete “or Grade 100”. Reason statement: The ACI 318 Committee-requested revisions to
2. Page 572, Line 23, delete “and Grade 100”. And replace the ASTM A706/A706M standard appear unlikely to be published
“are” with “is”. Same comment on Lines 28-29. before ACI 318-19 is published. Therefore coordination of ACI
3. Page 573, Lines 18-19, delete “ASTM A706 Grade 100 for . . 318-19 with current edition of the ASTM standard is necessary to
.” avoid inconsistencies between the two documents.

132 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
4. Page 800, Line 15 - There is no “ductility designation” in the Items 1-3 of the six items proposed by commenter:
current ASTM A706/A706M-16. Delete “or ductility As opposed to deleting the reference to ASTM A706/A706M
designation”. Or consider deleting Line 15 in its entirety Grade 100 reinforcement as suggested by the commenter’s Items
5. Page 803, Line 15 - There is no “Type W” in the current 1-3, proposed changes in response to Public Comments 45 and 46
ASTM A706/A706M-16. Delete “Type “W”. facilitate inclusion of Grade 100. Therefore the commenter’s
6. Page 843 - Delete “Type W” in Lines 5, 6, 9-10, 12, 20 and 22. suggested changes for these items are not taken up.
The commenter’s items 4-6 remain relevant.

Specific Code/Commentary Change Proposal Required: The


following page and line numbers are with respect to the Public
Comment draft of ACI 318-19.

Items 4-6 of the six items proposed by commenter:


Commenter’s Item 4: Page 800, Line 15 - Delete Line 15 in its
entirety and re-letter the items that follow at Lines 17-24.

Commenter’s Item 5: Page 803, Line 15, delete “Type “W”

Commenter’s Item 6: Page 843, Lines 5, 6, 9-10, 12, 20 and 22,


delete “Type W”

Due to space limits in this response column, the


Code/Commentary Change Proposal Required to address Public
Comment 330 Items 4-6 are given in the next cell.
Subcommittee B Comment Response
Public Comment No. 330

<<NOTE: The Specific Code/Commentary Change Proposal Required to address response to Public Comment No. 330 Item 4 follows. The highlighted strikeout/underline in black
or (double strikeout in red) are the specific Code/Commentary changes to address the responses to the Public Comments. >>

26.6.1.1 Design information:


(a) ASTM designation and grade of reinforcement, including applicable requirements for special seismic systems in accordance with 20.2.2.5.
(b) Weldability or ductility designation for ASTM A706 reinforcement. <<Delete (b) and re-letter the remaining sections.>>
133 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
(bc) (b) Type, size, location….

<<NOTE: The Specific Code/Commentary Change Proposal Required to address response to Public Comment No. 330 Item 5 follows. The strikeout/underline in black or (double
strikeout in red) are the specific Code/Commentary changes to address the responses to the Public Comments. >>

<<Delete “Type W” on pg. 803>>

26.6.4.12 Compliance requirements:


(a) Welding of all nonprestressed bars shall conform to the requirements of AWS D1.4. ASTM specifications for bar reinforcement, except for ASTM A706, Type W, shall be
supplemented to require a mill test report of material properties that demonstrate conformance to the requirements in AWS D1.4.

<<NOTE: The Specific Code/Commentary Change Proposal Required to address response to Public Comment No. 330 Item 6 follows. The highlighted strikeout/underline in black
or (double strikeout in red) are the specific Code/Commentary changes to address the responses to the Public Comments. >>

<<Delete “Type W” in all six occurrences on pg. 843>>


R26.6.4 Welding—If welding of reinforcing…..welding procedures.

Weldability of the steel…The expression considering only the elements carbon and manganese is to be used for bars other than ASTM A706 Type W. A more comprehensive CE
expression is given for ASTM A706 Type W bars, which is identical to the CE formula presented in ASTM A706.

ASTM A706 covers low-alloy steel reinforcing bars intended for applications that require controlled tensile properties, welding, or both. Weldability is accomplished in ASTM A706
Type W by requiring the CE not to exceed 0.55 percent and controlling the chemical composition. The manufacturer is required by ASTM A706 to report the chemical analysis and
carbon equivalent (Gustafson and Felder 1991). When welding reinforcing bars other than ASTM A706 Type W, the construction documents should specifically require that the mill
test report include chemical analysis results to permit calculation of the carbon equivalent.

…requires a minimum preheat. For bars other than ASTM A706 Type W, the minimum preheat required is 300°F for No. 6 bars or smaller, and 500°F for No. 7 bars or larger. The
required preheat for all sizes of ASTM A706 Type W bars is to be the temperature given in the Welding Code’s table for minimum preheat corresponding to the range of CE “over
0.45 percent to 0.55 percent.”

<<NOTE: after implementing the proposed changes in response to Public Comment No. 330 Items 5 and 6, there should no longer be mention of “Type W” in the ACI 318-19
Code/Commentary>>

134 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

331. Dale C. Biggers, 567 6 Concrete cover of 2.5 inches is standard. The requirement of 3- Disagree. The 3-in. cover requirement for this Concrete Exposure
P.E. inch cover is difficult to obtain in smaller piles and should be is consistent with Table 4.5.3.6 in ACI 543R-12.
revised.
No change required.
332. Dale C. Biggers, 567 6 The change from 1-inch cover to 1.5-inch causes the same Disagree. The 1.5-in. cover requirement for this Concrete
P.E. problems as the comment above. Exposure is consistent with Table 4.5.3.6 in ACI 543R-12.

No change required.
333. Daniel S. 567 6 Minimum concrete cover given in table 20.5.1.3.4 for cast-in- The cover of 2.5-in will be considered for New Business in the
Stevenson, P.E. place deep foundation members cast against ground is given as next Code Cycle.
Representing DFI 3”. This is a change from current IBC 2018 Table 1808.2, which Agree with comment regarding composite piles. Clarification
Codes and specifies a minimum cover of 2.5”. The 3” cover requirement added to Commentary, see response to public comment #115.
Standards can be difficult to meet for small pile shafts, including No change required.
Committee micropiles. For a 12” pile, the tie will need to be 6” diameter.
It is difficult for most fabricators to bend a #4 tie into a 6”
diameter circle, but most can bend into a 7” circle. For a 12”
pile with 3” clear cover, the amount of concrete within the
confined core is structurally insignificant. If 2.5” of clear cover
is allowed, the area of the confined core is 36% greater than
for the same pile with 3” clear cover. Consider allowing the
same 2.5” clear cover that has been permitted by IBC for many
code cycles. We know of no corrosion issues resulting from the
IBC 2.5” minimum clear cover. Part of the reasoning for the
ACI 3” cover requirement for concrete cast against earth is that
the excavations for footings are often uneven, so the actual
cover can often be less than the specified cover. Deep
foundations are usually drilled, with the inside of the drill shaft
relatively smooth. Spacers are used to ensure proper cover.
Under such conditions, the 2.5” clear cover required by IBC is
more appropriate.
334. Daniel S. 567 6 Minimum clear cover for deep foundation elements enclosed Disagree. The 1.5-in. cover requirement for this Concrete
Stevenson, P.E. by steel casing, pipe, tube, or stable rock socket is given as Exposure is consistent with Table 4.5.3.6 in ACI 543R-12.

135 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Representing DFI 1.5”. This is currently 1” in IBC. The increased 1.5” minimum Also, currently micropiles are not included in 318-19.
Codes and cover in ACI will result in detailing difficulties for smaller piles,
Standards particularly micropiles. Increased pipe/casing size will be No change required.
Committee required in some circumstances, increasing construction costs.
335. Daniel S. 567 6 Table 20.5.1.3.4 is not referenced by section 1.4.7, or any of Agree. 1.4.7(c) is revised as response to Comment #9 to include
Stevenson, P.E. the referenced sections in 1.4.7. Section 1.4.7 states “This all of Ch. 13., and 13.2.1.2 references all of Ch. 20.
Representing DFI code does not apply to the design of concrete piles, drilled
Codes and piers, and caissons embedded into the ground, except as No change required (see response to #4, page 2, line 12)
Standards provided in (a) through (d). If none of the sections (a) through
Committee (d) reference this table (directly or indirectly through other
referenced sections), then it would not apply.
336. David P. Gustafson 573 15 Consider replacing “earthquake loads” with “earthquake load Agree. The suggested language revision creates consistency with
effects”. ASCE 7 usage of terms.
Page 573 – Line 15:

“For strength-level earthquake loads effects, tests of members


using higher strength reinforcement have…”

337. Andres Lepage 573 17 A reference to tests of coupling beams (Weber-Kamin et al. 2019) Agreed.
needs to be added on Page 573, Line 17. Modify Lines 15 through Add reference as indicated.
17 using: Change as follows:

R20.2.2.5 R20.2.2.4…
“For strength-level earthquake loads, tests of members using
For strength-level earthquake loads, tests of members using
higher strength reinforcement have shown acceptable behavior
(Wallace 1998, Aoyama 2001, Budek et al. 2002, Sokoli and higher strength reinforcement have shown acceptable behavior
Ghannoum 2016, Cheng et al. 2016, Huq et al. 2018, Weber- (Wallace 1998, Aoyama 2001, Budek et al. 2002, Sokoli and
Kamin et al. 2019), leading…” Ghannoum 2016, Cheng et al. 2016, Huq et al. 2018, Weber-
Kamin et al. 2019)***, leading…”
The proper citation to Weber-Kamin et al. (2019) is included in
Comments to Page 919, Line 9.

136 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
338. Joe Ferzli (CKC), 595 6 The one way shear equation limit stated in section 22.5.1.2 is New Business, the limit in 22.5.1.2 is current code language.
Jason Thome (CKC) not in line with behavior of deep beams with high strength During the next Code cycle an examination of the limit can be
concrete. This is reported in several test results. ACI Structural conducted.
Journal Technical Paper “Maximum Shear Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Members” by Proestos, Bentz & Collings
(Sep 2018) summarizes the outcome of 131 experiments and
recommend a maximum shear upper limit as a linear function
instead of a root function of the specified compressive strength
of concrete (f’c).

Request code change to equation 22.5.1.2 for deep beams with


concrete strength greater than 4000 psi to have an upper limit
of 0.2 f’c. A directly proportional shear limit to f’c, similar to
AASHTO, is more appropriate than one related to the square
root of f’c for deep beams with high strength concrete.
339. Andrew Ayling 597 12 This section has a substantial effect on basement walls loaded Disagree with the impact, therefore no changes in the code or
(CPL) in out-of-plane bending and appears to be solving a problem commentary.
that does not exist. A 12” basement wall with 4,500 psi A 12” thick wall would have a ‘d’ no more than 11” which would
concrete that was sized to be shear controlled under ACI 318- result in a worst case size effect factor (s) of 0.976 (only a 2.5%
14 would now need to be approximately 18” thick under ACI increase).
318-19 if no other capacity increasing measures like using a If the longitudinal steel ratio () is:
higher concrete strength or adding shear reinforcing were 0.33% than 8()^(1/3) = 1.19 (40% reduction over using
implemented. If you increased the concrete strength to 8,000 2sqrt(f’c).)
psi the wall would still need to be 14” thick. Either way this will 1% than 8()^(1/3) = 1.72 (14% reduction over using 2sqrt(f’c).)
result in large cost increases. As a practicing engineer for over 1.5% than 8 )^(1/3) = 1.97 (1.4% reduction over using 2sqrt(f’c).)
16 years I am not aware of any shear related basement wall
failures. This is likely due to overly conservative design Adding
pressures from the Geotechnical Engineer. The design loads
are not likely to get smaller anytime soon so what we are left
with is rising costs for basement walls when the status quo has
been more than adequate. I suggest that an exception be
added to 25.5.5 for structural out-of-plane walls that allows 2
longitudinal reinforcement in the zone of high shear is a solution
over increasing wall thickness or increasing concrete strength.
137 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
roots f’c to be used. Or as an alternative you could still impose
the size effect but start with 2 roots f’c. Note: the engineer can also take advantage of the axial
compressive force occurring simultaneously with the shear at the
base of the wall.

The intent is to take into account the observed low shear capacity
test results for the case of no shear reinforcement, very low
longitudinal steel ratio () and no axial force (refer to figure):

(above figure is an excerpt from the upcoming ACI Journal article)

340. Zdenek P. Bazant 598 9 On p. 598, Eq. 22.5.5.1.3, the round parentheses “( )” in the Agree, change size effect equation throughout the Code to:
Abdullah Dönmez denominator should be removed. They are superfluous, clutter
the view of the equation. If anything, some might want to
2
move the “(“ just before “d”, but this is also not necessary. s = <1
(1 + d /10)
This formula (size effect factor) appears also at several other 2
λ𝑠 = √ 𝑑 ≤ 1
places, and the same revisions need to be made (for 23.4.4.1). 1+
10

341. Brian Gerber 608 1 Through line 2: Disagree. Experimental evidence from laboratory tests does not
Neither Chapter 18 nor 22.6.6.1 mention the value of vc should support that requirement provided the proposed 8.6.1.2 is
be reduced to vc = 1.5(f´c)0.5 as given by Eq. 7-1a of ACI 421.1R satisfied .
for earthquake resistant applications. This needs to included.
342. Amin Ghali and 608 1 Through line 2: Disagree
Ramez B. Gayed Removal of parts (c) and (d) of Table 22.6.6.1 is necessary. Also,
it is necessary to require (e) for stirrups and studs at the outer Parts (c) and (d) in Table 22.6.6.1 cannot be removed. They may
shear critical sections. govern even for slabs with headed shear stud reinforcement.

Applying reduction factors for vc when studs are used cannot be Part (e) refers to 22.6.4.2 which defines the location of the outer
justified by tests or analysis. The permitted values of vc depend critical section mentioned by the respondents.
upon control of potential cracking by shear reinforcement; this
is irrelevant to parameters in parts (c) and (d) of Table 22.6.6.1

138 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
(s, , and bo/d). The language proposed by commenters for cruciform layouts is
fine but note the layout is already shown in Figs. R22.6.4.2a, b and
Control of potential shear cracks depends upon shear c in the code; therefore no change.
reinforcement details. A statement should be inserted in
R22.6.6.1, page 631 to state that parts (a) and (b) of Table
22.6.6.1 are intended for crucifix layouts with spacings specified
in R8.7.6 and R8.7.7 (see comment relevant to page 631, line
11).
343. Amin Ghali and 608 6 Through line 7: Disagree
Ramez B. Gayed Removal of the words “with stud shaft length not exceeding 10
in.” is necessary. Also, it is necessary to insert in R22.6.6.2, The restriction on the stud shank length was added because of
page 608: concerns that long smooth studs may not be able to arrest the
growth of the shear crack inside the slab and hence mitigate the
Mechanically anchored smooth bars, with or without size effect in a deep slab.
prestressing are widely used in concrete industry without length
restriction. Restriction of length of shank to to 10 in. has no The shear reinforcement in the 3 beams tested by Lubbell et al
basis. With smooth shank, the heads exert confining force equal (2009) indeed consisted of piggybacked shear studs along their
to the tension in the bar (≤ yield stregth). Unintended force length (with the lower stud being longer than 10 in.). However, no
exerted on the concrete by the shank , reduces the confining control specimen with single shank studs was tested to be able to
force; thus smooth shank enhances the confinement. compare the responses and confirm what the respondents are
stating.
Effectiveness of headed studs, with perfectly smooth shanks,
has been calibrated by non-linear finite element analysis
(Megally and Ghali, 1996).
Short smooth studs with forged heads are economically
produced at fast speed. Two short studs make one long stud by
stacking (piggybacking, Fig. R22.6.6.2). Tests of beams with
studs having smooth shanks taller than 10 in., produced by
piggybacking, show that the strenth is not adversely affected by
the length of the shanks (Lubell et al., 2009). Unintended force
exerted on the concrete by the intermediate head has no
benificial effect; economy is the only reason that it exists.
Similarly, economy is the only reason to use ordinary deformed
bars to produce headed stud shear reinforcement.

139 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
References:
Megally, S. and Ghali, A., 1996, “Nonlinear Analysis of
Moment Transfer Between Columns and Slabs”, Proceedings,
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Annual Conference,
Edmonton, Alberta, May, Vol. 2a, pp. 321-332.
Lubell, A.S.,Bentz, E. and Collins, M., 2009, “Headed Shear
Reinforcement Assemblies for One-Way Shear”, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 106, No. 6, November-December, pp. 878-886.
344. Reid W. Castrodale 618 1 Through line 3: Disagree, the limit of 0.85 is existing code language (no change
Table 22.9.4.2 from ACI 318-14), therefore no justification is provided.
While the use of lambda in the table is reasonable, no reason is
given here and no commentary is provided regarding the
maximum limit of 0.85.
345. Allan Bommer 622 36 Please provide guidance on the calculation of d (or dx and dy) Disagree, the definition of dx and dy is sufficient. dx or dy (as
in biaxial shear conditions. For any Vx and Vy shear forces, the defined by the commenter) is calculated as it is done currently
neutral axis may be at any orientation; it has no fixed without the consideration of biaxial shear, that is, strength is
relationship to the shear force vector (shear is related to the estimated in each direction independently (following the
derivative of moment and not directly to moment). The neutral indications for uniaxial shear strength for the estimation of d)
axis can even be parallel to the shear vector. before checking that the capacity is adequate with the interaction
curve (equation). Thus, dx or dy does not require special
A possible resolution to this problem is to define d for these attention given that it is indicated in the commentary that
biaxial cases as the maximum depth of all reinforcement on the strength should be calculated in each direction.
appropriate face.

It should be noted that the engineer delegates the calculation


of shear capacity to software almost all the time (and millions
of times per project), so declaring that human “engineering
judgment” should be used is ignoring the realities of design
practice.
346. Zdenek P. Bazant 624 15 Page 624, [CE025], R22.5.5.1 line 15. The references Disagree, the statement after the references states “has shown
Abdullah Dönmez cited, except Bazant, did indeed demonstrate that size effect that the shear stress at failure is lower for beams with increased
exists and is significant, which ought to be referenced. But it depth”. The number of references suggested by the reviewer is
needs to be also mentioned that these studies recommended not necessary to provide a reason for the size effect. If a designer

140 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
equations different from the size effect factor adopted for the wants a more in depth justification, they can easily find the
2019 code, or else the readers would be confused. references.
Among these references, only the reference to Bazant et
al. 2007 gives the size effect factor used in the 2019 code. This With regards to comment referring to CF007, this should be
reference represents a proposal by ACI-446, which justifies the CE021. We disagree on the 30% reduction to the shear strength
size effect factor by nonlinear statistical regression of a very of a footing due to size effect proposed by the commenters in
large database. However, this reference does not give full absence of a formal provision for size effect on shear strength of
derivation and explanation. footings. This proposed reduction seems rather arbitrary.
In the interest of reader’s understanding, clarity and
fairness, the references listed below should be added. For the record, ACI 318 had the opportunity to evaluate a proposal
The first proposal of the size effect factor used in the 2019 from 318F on the subject of size effect on shear strength of
code was made in 1984 in [A], and its simplified derivation was footings near the end of the code cycle. No consensus on the
also given. subject was reached based mainly on the fact that i) no footing
The first proposal to apply this size effect factor to beam shear failures due to size effects have been reported let alone
shear was made in 1984 in [B]. This paper was the first to documented in detail, and, ii) the available experimental evidence
assemble a large database (of 292 beam shear tests), and this is rather limited.
database was then used in [B] to justify the size effect factor now
The introduction of a size effect in the formulation for the shear
in the code.
strength of footings will be treated as new business.
Ref. [Ba] provided a more fundamental derivation and also
presented for the first time test results with perfect geometric
scaling, very small coefficient of variation of scatter and the
biggest size range ever, 1 : 16, although the tests were made on
reduced scale beams with reduced aggregate size and reduced
steel bar diameters.
Several other derivations, more complete discussions and
explanations, and experimental and theoretical demonstrations
that the same size effect factor applies to all quasibrittle
materials, were presented in book [Bb] (Sec. 10.1), and later
more extensively in book [C].
Reference [D] showed why and how the size effect factor
could be applied to the strut-and-tie model.
Reference [E1, E2] presented the complete formula which
included the effects of steel ratio and aggregate size, and

141 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
presented for the first-time a properly weighted unbiased
nonlinear regression of the database to optimize the size effect
equation with the size effect factor.
Reference [F] showed the method how to eliminate
statistical bias from the database, the bias being inevitably
caused by data crowding or sparsity in different ranges of the
variables.
Ref. [G] provided the most up-to-date arguments and
optimization of the size effect, and for the first time analyzed
test data documenting the geometrical similarity of shear failure
modes of properly scaled beams of different sizes.
----------------
Page 625, line 2: [CE075] R22.5.5.1.3 Add references,
mainly [C], but also [A], [Ba], [Bb]
---------------
Page 629, line 27: [CE065] R22.6.5.2 line 33 Reference [H]
should be added. It showed, using reduced-scale model tests
with reduced aggregate size, that the same size effect factor was
also approximately applicable to two-way shear in slab
punching. This was also discussed in [Ba, Bb].
------------------------------
Page 275, line 18: [CF007] 13.2.6.2 p. 275 This code article
means that the size effect factor may, but need not, be applied
to footings. But the difference can be quite large. This arbitrary
choice seems to us a strange approach for a design code. If you
want to allow omission of size effect, better write that, if the size
effect factor is ignored, the shear strength of footing should be
reduced by, e.g., 30%.

REFERENCES TO ADD:
[A] Bazant, Z.P. (1984). "Size effect in blunt fracture:
Concrete, rock, metal." J. of Engrg. Mechanics, ASCE, 110 (4),
518--535.
142 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
[B] Bazant, Z.P., and Kim, Jenn-Keun (1984). "Size effect
in shear failure of longitudinally reinforced beams." Am.
Concrete Institute Journal, 81, 456--468; Disc. & Closure 82
(1985), 579--583.
[Ba] Bazant, Z.P., and Kazemi, M.T. (1991). “Size effect
on diagonal shear failure of beams without stirrups." ACI
Structural Journal 88 (3), 268--276.
[Bb] Bazant, Z.P., and Planas, J. (1998). Fracture and Size
Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle Materials. CRC Press,
Boca Raton and London (Sec. 10.1).
[C] Bazant, Z.P. (2005). Scaling of Structural Strength, 2nd
ed., Elsevier, London 2005.
[D] Bazant, Z.P. (1997). "Fracturing truss model: Size
effect in shear failure of reinforced concrete." J. of Engrg.
Mechanics ASCE 123 (12), 1276--1288.
[E1] Bazant, Z.P., and Yu, Q. (2005). "Designing against
size effect on shear strength of reinforced concrete beams
without stirrups: I. Formulation" J. of Structural Engineering
ASCE 131 (12), 1877--1885.
[E2] Bazant, Z.P., and Yu, Q. (2005). "Designing against
size effect on shear strength of reinforced concrete beams
without stirrups: II. Verification and calibration" J. of Structural
Engineering ASCE 131 (12), 1885--1897.
[F] Bazant, Z.P., and Yu, Qiang (2008). "Minimizing
statistical bias to identify size effect from beam shear
database." ACI Structural Journal 105 (6, Nov.-Dec.), 685--691.
[G] Yu, Qiang, Le, Jia-Liang, Hubler, H.H., Wendner, R.,
Cusatis, G., and Bazant, Z.P. (2016). "Comparison of main
models for size effect on shear strength of reinforced and

143 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
prestressed concrete beams." Structural Concrete (fib) 17 (5)
Dec., 778--789.
[H] Bazant, Z.P., and Cao, Z. (1987). “Size effect in
punching shear failure of slabs." ACI Structural Journal 84, 44--
53.

347. Antoni Cladera 624 17 No information regarding the new term w1/3 is included in the Disagree that additional references and justification is needed.
antoni.cladera@ui commentaries. In my opinion, it would be important for
b.es practising engineers, students and researchers to understand Topic is covered in more detail in the referenced ACI Journal
the physical meaning of this parameter. For this reason the paper on the new one-way shear equations
following additional commentary is proposed, to be included
in 22.5.5.1:

Research (Cladera et al. 2017, Frosch et al. 2017, Park and Choi
2017) has shown that most of the shear force due to the
concrete at maximum load is carried by an inclined
compression strut above the diagonal crack, transmitted across
the non-cracked concrete above the tip of the diagonal crack
(Yu et al. 2016, Marí et al. 2015). The term (w)1/3d is almost
proportional to the neutral axis depth, c, obtained using the
standard analysis of cracked RC sections under pure flexure
(Cladera et al. 2016).

Justification
Four out of the six shear proposal summarized in the
September 2017 Issue of Concrete International (published
after the hot topic session celebrated at the ACI Spring
Convention in Milwaukee, 2016) recognized the concrete
compression chord as the main transfer action for the shear
forces at the maximum load (Cladera et al. 2017, Frosch et al.
2017, Li et al. 2017, Park et al. 2017). I fully understand that to
use c, the neutral axis depth as a design parameter could be
144 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
complicate for practicing engineers, and the term w1/3 is much
more convenient.

Research (Cladera et al. 2016, Cladera et al 2017) has shown


that c/d is proportional to the term (w)1/3. Consequently, the
proposed shear equations take indirectly into account the
neutral axis depth.

In Cladera et al. (2016) it’s shown that:


𝑐 2
= 𝑛𝜌𝑤 (−1 + √1 + ) ≈ 0.75(𝑛𝜌𝑤 )1/3
𝑑 𝑛𝜌𝑤
being n the modular ratio, n =Es/Ec, and it must be simplified
taken as a constant. The similitude between the two terms of
previous equation is shown in the next figure, where the
simplified solution (dashed black line) refers to the
0.75(𝑛𝜌𝑤 )1/3 and the exact value (red line) to 𝑛𝜌𝑤 (−1 +
2
√1 + 𝑛𝜌 ):
𝑤

145 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

Therefore, c is almost proportional to 𝑐 ∝ (𝜌𝑤 )1/3 𝑑. We really


think it’s important for practising engineers, researchers and
students to understand the physical meaning of this parameter
and why this new term, (w)1/3, fits well with the experimental
test results.

References
Cladera, A., Marí, A., Bairán, J. M., Oller, E., & Ribas, C. (2017).
One-Way Shear Design Method Based on a Multi-Action
Model. Concrete International, 39(9), 40-46.
Cladera, A., Marí, A., Bairán, J. M., Ribas, C., Oller, E., & Duarte,
N. (2016). The compression chord capacity model for the
shear design and assessment of reinforced and prestressed
concrete beams. Structural Concrete, 17(6), 1017-1032.
Frosch, R. J., Yu, Q., Cusatis, G., & Bažant, Z. P. (2017). A unified
approach to shear design. Concrete International, 39(9), 47-
52.
Marí, A., Bairán, J., Cladera, A., Oller, E., & Ribas, C. (2015).
Shear-flexural strength mechanical model for the design
146 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
and assessment of reinforced concrete beams. Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering, 11(11), 1399-1419.
Park, H. G., & Choi, K. K. (2017). Unified Shear Design Method
of Concrete Beams Based on Compression Zone Failure
Mechanism. Concrete International, 39(9), 59-63.
Yu, Q., Le, J. L., Hubler, M. H., Wendner, R., Cusatis, G., &
Bažant, Z. P. (2016). Comparison of main models for size
effect on shear strength of reinforced and prestressed
concrete beams. Structural Concrete, 17(5), 778-789.

348. Restrepo J.I. and 630 24 This line should read Agree. Change made.
Rodriguez M.E. “…shear walls structural walls”
See reason given in comment on page 97, line 8.
349. David P. Gustafson 631 8 Replace “carry” with “resist”. Agree, change “the stirrups carry all the shear” to “the stirrups
resist all the shear”, this is more consist with the rest of the Code.
350. Amin Ghali and 631 11 Immediately below line 11, insert: Disagree:
Ramez Gayed The proposed change is not needed. Reference to 8.7.6 (stirrup
The rules for design and detailing of stirrups as shear shear reinforcement) and 8.7.7 (headed shear stud reinforcements)
reinforcement apply with the crucifix layout in Figs. R8.7.6d is clearly noted in 22.6.6.2.
and e. Values of vc in Table 22.6.6.1(a) apply only with the
crucifix layout of stirrups in Figs. R8.7.6d and e. The values in
Table 22.6.6.1(b) are intended for the crucifix layout of headed
stud assemblies in Fig. R8.7.7.
351. Amin Ghali and 631 12 Through line 13: Disagree.
Ramez. B. Gayed In R22.6.6.2, retain only the first sentence; delete the words:
“The ability of ordinary (smooth) headed shear stud … anchor See response to Comment 343 Page 608, lines 6-7, Ghali for
the stacked stud.” reason.

The first sentence of R22.6.6.2 recognizes that minimum


amount of shear reinforcement in slabs with d > 10 in. mitigates
the size effect. Further testing is not needed or expected in
foreseeable future. Subsequent sentences of R22.6.6.2 disallow
headed studs. Stirrups and headed studs are most effective when
they are perpendicular to potential shear cracks. But R22.6.6.2,

147 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
or the restriction of inclined headed studs in 8.7.7.1, effectively
permits inclined stirrups, but disallows smooth headed studs in
slabs whose thickness, h ≥ 9.8 in. or d ≥ 8.4 in. (assuming 45-
degree incline and 0.75 in. complete cover of stud heads); note
the contradiction with d > 10 in. Any of the two restrictions,
practically, disallows using the most effective type of shear
reinforcement to mitigate size effect. Both restrictions need to
be removed.

With the geometry of stud head and rail specified in ASTM


1044/1044M-05 (2010), no further anchorage is required or
desired. Two stacked short studs make one longer stud
(piggybacking). Deformation on shank surface of headed stud,
or intermediate head in a stud produced by piggy-backing does
not exert beneficial force on concrete; if such force exist, it
would be small, would not contribute to end anchorage and
would reduce the confining force exerted by end anchors. For
accuracy, R22.6.6.2 should consist of its first sentence; the
remainder is not needed.
352. Roshan A D 639 9 Through line 13: Disagree, 22.9.4.6 states explicitly that reinforcement
In Clause R 22.9.4.6, it is not clear whether the reinforcement requirements for net axial tension and shear friction are additive.
required for shear friction, Avf, at a cross section is in addition The first paragraph of R22.9.4.6 provides complementary
to that has been already provided in that cross section to resist information about common sources of net axial tension, and the
bending moment (flexure) and axial force . second paragraph then separately makes the point that flexural
tension and net axial tension are treated differently when
Clause 22.9.4.2 is also not explicitly clarifying this issue as it considering shear friction. No change is required.
states Avf is the reinforcement crossing the shear plane to
resist shear. As the flexural reinforcement provided in that
cross section also crosses the shear plane where shear friction
calculations are applied, this reinforcement can also be also
‘argued’ to be counted as resisting shear friction.

In view of the above, following additional line may be


introduced in Clause R22.9.4.2 after line 22, stating

148 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
“ Avf thus calculated is in addition to reinforcement already
provided in the cross section to resist flexure or combined
effect of tension and flexure or compression and flexure, as the
case may be.”
353. Khattab Saleem 651 0 There is some change in Strut and Tie chapter in the new ACI Thank you for your article. The Code permits the reinforcing of
318-19. So, please accept my point of view for discussion through struts and ties with longitudinal reinforcement. No change is
the paper below: recommended and therefore no change has been made.

Suggesting alternatives for reinforced concrete deep beams by


reinforcing struts and ties

Khattab Saleem Abdul-Razzaq1* and Sarah Farhan Jebur2


1
Department of Civil Engineering, Diyala University, Iraq.
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Diyala University, Iraq.

Available:
https://www.matec-
conferences.org/articles/matecconf/abs/2017/34/matecconf_asc
m2017_01004/matecconf_ascm2017_01004.html

354. Joe Ferzli (CKC), 655 3 The one way shear equation limit stated in section 23.4.4 is not New business. The cited research paper applies to sectional shear
Jason Thome (CKC) in line with behavior of deep beams with high strength design of members with and without transverse reinforcement,
concrete. This is reported in several test results. ACI Structural and the paper is critical of the 10√𝑓𝑐′ shear stress limit on slender
Journal Technical Paper “Maximum Shear Capacity of and deep beams in ACI 318-19. The change proposal that
Reinforced Concrete Members” by Proestos, Bentz & Collings included Equation 23.4.4 removed the 10 roots limit on shear
(Sep 2018) summarizes the outcome of 131 experiments and stress in transfer girders designed using the strut-and-tie method
recommend a maximum shear upper limit as a linear function and was shown to be conservative with respect to all tests of
instead of a root function of the specified compressive strength members (without transverse reinforcement and an a/d ratio less
of concrete (f’c). than 2) reported in the referenced ACI database — which
included specimens with concrete strengths up to 14,000 psi.
Request code change to equation 23.4.4 for deep beams with Note that strut compression, which is proportional to f’c must
concrete strength greater than 4000 psi to have an upper limit also be checked when Equation 23.4.4 is used. However, based
of 0.2 f’c. A directly proportional shear limit to f’c, similar to on this comment, the committee agrees to re-examine shear
149 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
AASHTO, is more appropriate than one related to the square stress limits in ACI 318, giving due consideration to the
root of f’c for deep beams with high strength concrete. recommended approach.
355. Adam Lubell 655 30 23.5. In wide planar-type members designed by the strut and New business. The committee agrees that minimum
tie method, it is desirable to ensure the stress distribution over reinforcement should be distributed in wide members. The
the member width is uniform. Consideration should be given commentary to 23.5 briefly mentions interior layers placed in
to requiring that the spacing of curtains of distributed wide members.
reinforcement from 23.5 through the member width should be
limited similar to those specified for beam shear reinforcement The committee disagrees that distributed reinforcement should
in 9.7.6.2.2 either as a Clause in 23.5 or as Commentary. be required where struts are laterally restrained in members like
pile caps and beam ledges supporting concentrated loads.
Where the member width is wider than the width used for the
strut and tie model (for example, to obtain a restrained strut Nevertheless, the apparent confusion justifies revisiting both
based on 23.5.3(b)), Clause 23.5 should require distributed comments as new business.
reinforcement calculated based on the gross section of the
member rather than the analysis width of the strut and tie
model.
356. David P. Gustafson 664 4 Consider replacing “compute” with “calculate”. Agree, change compute to calculate
357. ACI Staff 682 4 The figure refers to hairpin reinforcement which is typically Agree. “’ Hairpin’ reinforcement” is unnecessary and will be
small bars used for confinement. This appears to be a more deleted. Also remove pointers from “Hairpin reinforcement”.
substantial bar in some or many cases. Could this be reworded Adjust figure as shown below.
to “Tension ties anchored with 180 degree bend” or similar?

150 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

358. Peter Bischoff 687 3 For Table 24.2.3.5, in the denominator of the Ie equation, there Agree there will be confusion. Use Kreger suggestion from
should be a space between “2/3” and “Mcr” to avoid any comment 359 page 687, line 3, change all 2/3Mcr to (2/3)Mcr.
confusion that it is not 2 divided by 3Mcr.
359. ACI Staff 687 3 Via member Kreger. Please change the equations so that it is Agree there will be confusion. Use Kreger suggestion from
more clear that it is (2/3)Mcr and cannot be misinterpreted as comment 359 page 687 line 3, change all 2/3Mcr to (2/3)Mcr.
2/(3Mcr). Change all 2/3Mcr to (2/3)Mcr in Table 24.2.3.5.
360. Peter Bischoff 687 6 Clause 24.2.3.6 refers to Eq. (24.2.3.5a) which is now part of Agree. Change made.
Table 24.2.3.5. Suggest changing “Eq. (24.2.3.5a)” to “Table
24.2.3.5” unless wording needs to be changed as well.
361. Peter Bischoff 687 9 Clause 24.2.3.7 refers to Eq. (24.2.3.5a) which is now part of Agree. Change made.
Table 24.2.3.5. Suggest changing “Eq. (24.2.3.5a)” to “Table
24.2.3.5” unless wording needs to be changed as well.
362. Amin Ghali and 689 19 24.2.3.5 should state that it applies to members subjected to This is page 686 Line 19.
Ramez Gayed bending moment without normal force. Replace the words “For
nonprestressed members" by: Disagree. Prefer to refer to nonprestressed members as it is
“For members subjected to bending without normal force …”. difficult to show that there is absolutely no normal force in most
design situations.
363. Peter Bischoff 697 1 Through line 12: Agree with changes in references as listed
R24.2.3.5: below.

151 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
References provided in R24.2.3.5 are not all correct. The The committee will take up as new business the consideration of
effective moment of inertia equation was developed by Bischoff construction loads in the calculation of deflections.
(2005) and the reduced cracking moment 2/3 Mcr was proposed
by Scanlon and Bischoff (2008). If necessary, the ACI
publication by Bischoff and Scanlon (2007) could be used in “R24.2.3.5 The effective moment of
lieu of Bischoff (2005). The publication by Bischoff and inertia approximation, developed by Bischoff
Scanlon (2007) shows the range of applicability for Bischoff’s (2005) Bischoff and Scanlon (2008), has been
equation over a wide range of reinforcing ratios. shown to result in calculated deflections that have sufficient
accuracy for a wide range of reinforcement ratios (Bischoff and
Bischoff, P.H., 2005, “Revaluation of Deflection Prediction for Scanlon
Concrete Beams Reinforced with Steel and Fiber Reinforced 2007). Mcr is multiplied by 2/3 to consider
Polymer Bars,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. restraint that can reduce the effective cracking moment as well as
131, No. 5, May, pp. 752-767. to account for reduced tensile strength of concrete during
Bischoff, P.H., and Scanlon, A., 2007, “Effective Moment of construction that can lead to cracking that later affects service
Inertia for Calculating Deflections of Concrete Members deflections (Bischoff and Scanlon and Bischoff 2008).
Containing Steel Reinforcement and Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Before 2019, ACI 318 used a different
Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 104, No. 1, Jan-Feb,
equation (Branson 1965) to calculate Ie. The
pp. 68-75.
previous equation has subsequently been shown to underestimate
deflections for members with low reinforcement ratios, which
Suggest the following,
often occur in slabs, and does not consider the effects of restraint.
“R24.2.3.5 The effective moment of inertia
For members with greater than 1% reinforcement and a service
approximation, developed by Bischoff (2005) Bischoff and
moment at least twice the cracking moment, there is little
Scanlon (2008), has been shown to result in calculated
difference between deflections calculated using the former and
deflections that have sufficient accuracy for a wide range of
current code provisions.”
reinforcement ratios (Bischoff and Scanlon 2007). Mcr is
multiplied by 2/3 to consider restraint that can reduce the
effective cracking moment as well as to account for reduced
tensile strength of concrete during construction that can lead to
cracking that later affects service deflections (Bischoff and
Scanlon and Bischoff 2008).
Before 2019, ACI 318 used a different equation
(Branson 1965) to calculate Ie. The previous equation has
subsequently been shown to underestimate deflections for
members with low reinforcement ratios, which often occur in
slabs, and does not consider the effects of restraint. For
152 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
members with greater than 1% reinforcement and a service
moment at least twice the cracking moment, there is little
difference between deflections calculated using the former and
current code provisions.”

Note that the paper by Scanlon and Bischoff (2008) also


recommends that immediate deflection be calculated using Ie
corresponding to the full dead plus live load for all deflection
calculations (ie. for immediate deflection under sustained load
and immediate deflection under the full dead plus live service
load. This accounts for preloading during construction and gives
the most conservative estimate of incremental deflection.
Suggest the committee consider adding an additional sentence at
the end of the first paragraph to read as

“Preloading from construction loads can be taken into account


using an effective moment of inertia corresponding to the full
dead plus live service load when calculating immediate
deflection from sustained loads for incremental deflection
calculations.”
364. ACI Staff 697 7 In the committee approved CC004, this sentence read “Prior to Change made.
2019, ACI 318…” During editorial review, ACI editors changed It is appropriate to use “Code” when referring to 318, and “code”
this to “Before 2019, ACI 318…” based on ACI style. Please when referring to general codes. Change made.
provide direction to staff regarding preferred language.
365. Amin Ghali and 697 12 Through line 13 New Business. These provisions must be reviewed and voted by
Ramez Gayed Members subjected to normal force due to prestressing or other the full committee.
cause need to be considered. At beginning of R24.2.3.5 insert:

R24.2.3.5 Ie is an interpolated parameter between Ig and Icr;


where Ie and Icr = moments of inertia about principal axes of
gross concrete section and transformed cracked section ignoring
concrete in tension, respectively. The interpolation is based on
immediate deflection of prismatic simple beams, having vertical
and horizontal principal axes, subjected to maximum moment

153 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Ma at mid-span. Extending the analysis to other cases is based
mainly on intuition.
ACI 435R-95 (Appendix B added 2003) and Ghali et al., 2012
give a procedure applicable to frames (with non-prismatic
members) subjected to bending and normal force induced by
prestressing or other cause; cracking, creep, shrinkage and
prestress relaxation are considered.

References:
ACI Committee 435, 2003, Control of Deflection in Concrete
Structures, ACI 435R-95 (Appendix B added 2003).
Ghali, A., Favre, R. and Elbadry, M., 2012, Concrete
Structures, Stresses and Deformations, CRC Press, 4th Edition,
637 pp.
366. David P. Gustafson 701 20 Consider replacing “compaction” with “consolidation” Agree. Change made.
367. Dan Mullins 712 26 Suggested rewording: “For bars with fy>80,000 psi spaced Agree.
closer than 6 in. on center, transverse reinforcement shall be Reason: the proposed language is clearer.
provided such that Ktr shall not be smaller than 0.5 db”
Revise text (by adding “transverse reinforcement… such that”) as
follows:

25.4.4.2 For bars with fy>80,000 psi spaced closer than 6 in. on
center, transverse reinforcement shall be provided such that Ktr
shall not be smaller than 0.5db.

368. William Pollalis, 714 1 Comment regarding lap splices in ordinary walls: Lap splices Agreed.
Santiago Pujol, meeting proposed design provisions are likely to result in a
Robert Frosch brittle response in ordinary walls resisting seismic demands in The test data does indicate a potential issue, but the committee
regions of moderate seismicity. Tests including Gr 60 lap splices needs time to thoroughly vet this concern.
show that structural members may fail at drift ratios as low as New Business
½% to 1%. This brittle response is likely to be aggravated by
the use of Gr 80 or Gr 100 reinforcement. Please refer to the
appended file for documentation supporting this statement.
369. David Darwin 715 13 Because 25.4.3.3 only defines what constitutes the total cross- Agree
sectional area of ties or stirrups confining hooked bars Ath and
154 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
contains no requirements, the presumption is that the wrong
section has been cited. Therefore, “...25.4.3.3 (a) through (b)...” The reference is ambiguous. A more appropriate change is “For fy
should be “...25.4.3.4 (a) and (b)...” ≥ 80,000 psi, confining reinforcement indicated in 25.4.3.3 (a) and
(b) shall be provided”.

But this line should be deleted.


Reason: See response to comment 370, page 715 line 13.
Change: 25.4.3.2 For...apply. For fy ≥ 80,000 psi, 25.4.3.3 (a)
through (b) shall be satisfied.

370. David Darwin 715 13 Assuming that the first (Darwin) comment on page 715, line 13 Agree.
is correct, this change, requiring that extra confining reinforcing
be provided at hooks in accordance with 25.4.3.4 (a) and (b) for Delete as shown:
fy ≥ 80,000 psi, is technically problematic for two reasons: Reason: Research does not support different confinement
requirements for Grade 80 hooked bars. 25.4.3.1 is easily good for
(1) 25.4.3.4 (a) and (b) cover hooked bars anchored at the up to Grade 120 bars.
discontinuous ends of members with both low side cover and
low top cover. It is written with cantilevered flexural members
Change: 25.4.3.2 For...apply. For fy ≥ 80,000 psi, 25.4.3.3 (a)
in mind, but it could also apply to the top of cantilevered
through (b) shall be satisfied.
columns. It was retained in the 2019 Code to maintain the
current conservative approach to members of this type, although
no members with this geometry have ever been tested. 25.4.3.4
(a) requires that dh be enclosed within “...ties or stirrups
perpendicular to dh...” Thus, if retained, it will require beam
and slab flexural reinforcement anchored with hooks in beam-
column joints, slab-column joints, beam-wall joints, slab-wall
joints, and two-way slabs within the slab to be enclosed by
reinforcement that is perpendicular to dh if fy ≥ 80,000 psi. The
required orientation of the confining reinforcement is highly
impracticable and will effectively prevent the use of Grade 80
and stronger flexural reinforcement in these cases. There is
nothing in the research on which the new hook provisions are

155 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
based (references cited in new Commentary) that justifies this
requirement. It should be dropped.

(2) To follow up on the last part of reason (1), there is nothing


in the research on which the new hook provisions are based
(references cited in new Commentary) that would indicate that
the development of Grade 80 and stronger hooked bars needs to
be treated differently than the development of lower strength
hooked bars. The new development length provisions are based
on test results with bar stresses at anchorage failure up to 142
ksi. The provisions were formulated for hooked bars with fy up
to 120 ksi. The new provisions appropriately include the effects
of confining reinforcement and low side cover. The requirement
to satisfy 25.4.3.4 (a) and (b) for fy ≥ 80,000 psi is not justified
based on the research and should be dropped.

371. Reid W. Castrodale 715 15 Table 25.4.2.5 Agree.


Here and in a number of other tables (Tables 25.4.3.2 &
25.4.9.3), an entry appears for “lightweight concrete”. In some Reason: Removing reference to “aggregate will improve clarity.
tables, however, a note indicates that a modification was Note: In 318-19, lightweight concrete is defined as having an
required if lightweight aggregate was used. This needs to be equilibrium density between 90 and 135 lb/ft3. Lightweight
consistently treated throughout, because there are instances aggregate is not addressed in Code Chapter 25. This is an issue,
where a reduced density concrete, or an internally cured however, in footnotes of Tables 15.4.2.3 and 18.8.4.3 where it
concrete, is used which includes lightweight aggregate, but states that “ shall be 0.75 for concrete containing lightweight
may not have a density below 135 pcf. aggregate and 1.0 for concrete containing all normalweight
aggregate."
This must be clarified throughout the document.
The term also appears in R25.4.2.4.

Change footnotes of Tables 15.4.2.3 and 18.8.4.3: “ shall be 0.75


for concrete containing lightweight concrete aggregate and 1.0 for
concrete containing all normalweight aggregate concrete."

Change the first sentence of in R25.4.2.4 as follows:

156 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
“R25.4.2.4 The lightweight factor λ for calculating development
length of deformed bars and deformed wire in tension is the same
for all types of lightweight aggregate concrete.”

372. Reid W. Castrodale 715 15 Table 25.4.2.5 Disagree.


Since the option of computing lambda where fct is specified
has been proposed to be removed from the code, a factor of Reason: Commentary on the change appears in R19.2.4.
0.75 must now be used all types of lightweight concrete. Since
the other option was in the table, it must be appropriate for
use. Therefore, this is a significant limitation. I find no
commentary addressing this change.
373. David Darwin 718 13 In Table 25.4.4.3 for modification factor p, under Condition, Agree.
“0.3Ats” should be “0.3Ahs”.
Reason: This is a typo.

Change: Make the suggested change under Condition, “0.3AtsAhs”.


374. Reid W. Castrodale 721 13 Table 25.4.9.3 Agree.
This table still includes the provision to determine lambda
based on specifying fct which has been removed from other Reason: This was missed. Reference to fct must be removed.
similar tables. I expect that it was intended to be removed.
Change: Modify Table 25.4.9.3 as shown:
“Lightweight concrete, if fct is specified” and “In accordance with
19.2.4.3”
375. Mark W 722 25 The reference to 25.2.1 was correct – don’t change to 25.5.2.1. Agree.
Cunningham Line 26 indicates “[Errata]” – presumably to 318-14. However,
such errata to 318-14 is incorrect. 25.2.1 addresses minimum Change Page 722, Line 25:
spacing, whereas 25.5.2.1 addresses the splice lengths. “shall be in accordance with the requirements for individual bars
in 25.5. 2.1.”

376. Dan Mullins 722 31 Suggested rewording: “For bars with fy>80,000 psi spaced Agree.
closer than 6 in. on center, transverse reinforcement shall be Reason: the proposed language is clearer.
provided such that Ktr shall not be smaller than 0.5 db”

157 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Revise text (by adding “transverse reinforcement… such that”) as
follows:

25.5.1.5 For bars with fy≥80,000 psi spaced closer than 6 in. on
center, transverse reinforcement shall be provided such that Ktr
shall not be smaller than 0.5db.

377. Catherine French 725 19 The requirements for mechanical and welded splices in 25.5.7 New business.
and Conrad (i.e., Type 1 mechanical splices) should be based on actual yield
Paulson strength or preferably be strain-based provisions. The present
mechanical splice requirement may not ensure adequate
ductility of spliced bars with high overstrength or short or non-
existent yield plateaus. The revised provisions should take into
account the changes that have occurred in the stress-strain
relationship for nonprestressed deformed reinforcing bars
since the time that the requirements of 25.5.7 were developed
in the 1960s and 1970s, including the introduction of higher
grades of reinforcement.
378. Jason Kilgore, PE, 728 13 In paragraph 25.7.2.4.1, please clarify the intent, even if only in 18.13.5.4 actually applies to SDC C-F (see below). And according
SE the commentary, that hook closures on circular ties are only to 1.4.7(c), 318-19 does not apply to cast-in-place concrete deep
required for seismic categories D, E, and F. foundations in SDC A and B.

Alternately, please add an exception to 25.7.2.4.1 for deep Cast-in-place concrete deep foundation elements in SDC A and B
foundations similar to the exception in 25.7.3.3 (page 728, line will be considered for New Business in the next Code cycle.
33)
18.13.5.4 For structures assigned to SDC C, D, E, or F, hoops,
Paragraph 18.13.5.4 (page 448, line 6) specifically requires tie spirals, and ties in deep foundation members shall be
hooks for deep foundations in SDC D, E, or F, but doesn’t terminated with seismic hooks.
indicate a closure method for SDC A, B, or C.
No change required.
Justification:
This is needed for drilled shafts supporting power transmission
structures in low seismic areas.

158 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
The standard design for engineered poles has a circular ring of
#18-Jumbo anchor rods held with steel ring templates. The bolt
circle diameter is determined by the pole size, which in turn is
based on wind and very high wire tensions. The outer pier
reinforcing cage is located just outside the bolt template and
determines the diameter of footing.

Adding space for closure hooks to the ties in the outer pier
reinforcing cage requires greatly increasing the pier diameter.

Currently, as the codes governing power transmission lines


don’t specifically reference the ACI 318, most power utilities in
low-seismic areas simply ignore the hook requirement and use
the old lap-splice details. But the IBC does reference ACI 318.

These footings typically have high moments from wind loads


but low shear and very low axial. Minimum shear steel almost
always works, and the soil strength always controls over
concrete/steel bending stress.
379. David P. Gustafson 739 3 Replace “reinforcing steel” with “reinfiorcent”. Agreed.
R25.4.2.3 …
Ѱg is the reinforcement grade factor accounting for the yield
strength of the reinforcing steel reinforcement.
380. Reid W. Castrodale 739 19 R25.4.2.5 Accept, editorial. Renumber:
It appears that commentary sections were not renumbered R25.4.2.23
with the articles. This should be R25.4.2.5 R25.4.2.34
R25.4.2.45
381. Reid W. Castrodale 739 20 R25.4.2.4 Agree.
Research is mentioned as being the reason for the general
application of a limit to lightweight concrete. However, no Page 739, Line 20, add reference:
reference is given to the research. This is needed. “variations of this factor in Codes prior to 1989 for all-lightweight
and sand-lightweight concrete (ACI 408R-03(12)).”

159 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
The sentence in this article that indicates that the option to Add commentary reference:
specify the splitting tensile strength was permitted has now ACI 408R-03(12) Bond and Development of Straight Reinforcing
been removed. As noted above, this makes removes the option Bars in Tension
to make the factor less restrictive. This does not appear to be
appropriate since the option was deemed appropriate in the
past.
382. David Darwin 739 25 The statement, “The reinforcement grade factor ψg accounts for Agree.
the yield strength of the reinforcement because development
length is not linearly related to the yield strength (Canbay and Reason: Although the effect of using ψg results in a nonlinear
Frosch 2005).” should be replaced because it misstates the Code relationship between d and fy, the consensus (ACI Committee 408
change and does not cite the original research. Orangun et al.
(1977) first observed that the bar stress is not proportional to and other researchers) is that the relationship is close to linear, but
development and splice length when bars undergo a bond non-proportional. The change proposed describes the reason for
failure. Their representation indicated that, while not adding ψg without tying down the committee to a specific
proportional, the relationship between bar stress and approach in future editions.
development length was close to linear. Other researchers and
Committee 408 have reached a similar conclusion. In fact, the Delete: “The reinforcement grade factor ψg accounts for the yield
relationship between ψg and fy is linear. The statement would be strength of the reinforcement because development length is not
improved and be more useful to users of the Code if it were linearly related to the yield strength (Canbay and Frosch 2005)
replaced by: “The reinforcement grade factor ψg accounts for
the yield strength of the reinforcement because increases in Replace with:
bond strength are not proportional to increases in bonded length
(Orangun et al. 1977).” The reinforcement grade factor ψg accounts for the effect of
reinforcement yield strength on required development length.
Research has shown that required development length increases
disproportionately with increases in yield strength (Orangun et al.
1977; Canbay and Frosch 2005).
383. David Darwin 743 9 “Ishao” should be “(Shao” Agree.

Reason: This is a typo.


Make this change: “IsShao”

384. Reid W. Castrodale 747 33 R25.4.9.2 Disagree.

160 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Is not splitting also more likely in high strength concrete? So Reason: These are very old provisions. Little research has been
should a reduction factor also be considered for high strength done in this area, and there is not enough information available
concrete?
to make a change. Note that fc is limited to 100 psi.

385. ACI Staff 748 23 Should this list include 7.7.7 now? Or consider rewording this Agree.
to say “…or for development of structural integrity
reinforcement.” Change: Add 7.7.7 to the list. Page 748, Line 23:

“provided according to 7.7.7, 8.7.4.2, 8.8.1.6, 9.7.7, and 9.8.1.6.”

386. David P. Gustafson 751 9 Consider replacing “carrying” with “transferring”. Disagree.

These elements do carry the load also.


387. ACI Staff 757 13 Verify (Fig R25.9.1.1b) applies here rather than (Fig. 25.9.1.1a). Suggest showing a local zone in Fig. 25.9.1.1b similar to Fig.
There is no local zone called out in Fig. 25.9.1.1b. Also, what 25.9.1.1a and changing the reference in R25.9.4 to “…stresses
does immediately ahead of the local zone mean? Possibly show immediately ahead of the local zone should be checked (Figs.
meaning on graphic. 25.9.1.1a and R25.9.1.1b).” Also change title to “Fig. R25.9.1.1b—
Local and gGeneral zones for anchorage device located away
from the end of a member.” See also page 776, line 1, and sketch
below (changes shown in red).

161 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

388. Reid W. Castrodale 760 7 Through line 10: Partially Agree.


R25.9.4.5.2
The commentary states that “the lambda factor for lightweight Change the section to read:
concrete reflects its lower tensile strength … as well as the
wide scatter and brittleness exhibited in some lightweight R25.9.4.5.2 Some inelastic deformation of concrete within
concrete anchorage zone test.” general zones is expected because anchorage zone design is
based on a strength approach. The inclusion of Unless shown by
Again, LWC is stated as having lower tensile strength. The tests, the λ factor for lightweight concrete reflects its should be
brittleness and scatter observed in some LWC anchorage zone applied to reflect a lower tensile strength, which is an indirect
test are used to justify a reduction to be applied to all factor in limiting compressive stresses, as well as the wide scatter
162 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
lightweight concrete. There are also some normalweight and brittleness exhibited in some lightweight concrete anchorage
concretes that are brittle and have scatter, but that does not zone tests.
result in all NWC being penalized for it.

Again – the code needs to define performance standards and


allow lightweight concrete to meet them without penalty when
the material is capable of doing so.

Finally, although tests are mentioned, no references are given.


389. ACI Staff 762 13 Ties and stirrups not identified on drawing or title. What is Agree:
confining reinforcement? Is it ties and stirrups? Suggest adding
explanation to figure. Reason: An explanation is needed to improve clarity of the figure.
Note that confining reinforcement could consist of ties or stirrup
depending if the hooked bars are anchored horizontally within a
beam (as shown) or vertically within a column.

Modified the figure shown in the response to Comment 389


modified to clearly show the 15db dimension. The figure title will
be as shown in CB601.

Placed figures a and b adjacent to each other and change the


figure title to ” Fig. R25.4.3.3a—Confining reinforcement placed

163 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
parallel to the bar being developed that contributes to anchorage
strength of both 90- and 180-degree hooked bars.

390. ACI Staff 763 3 Ties and stirrups not identified on drawing or title. What is Agree.
confining reinforcement? Is it ties and stirrups? Suggest adding
explanation to figure. An explanation is needed to improve clarity of the figure. Note that
confining reinforcement could consist of ties or stirrup depending
if the hooked bars are anchored horizontally within a beam (as
shown) or vertically within a column.
Change: Figure will be as shown in the Committee response to
Comment 389 (shown again below). The figure title will be as
shown in CB601.

Fig. R25.4.3.3b—Confining reinforcement placed perpendicular to


the bar being developed, spaced along the development length ldh,
that contributes to anchorage strength of both 90- and 180-degree
hooked bars.
391. ACI Staff 767 4 Suggest calling out “potential failure surface” in busy figures Agree.
similar to 318-14 Fig. R25.4.4.2e.

164 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Reason: The proposed change will improve the clarity of the
figures.

Added “Potential failure surface” to figure (twice), as shown.


Note in figure on “parallel reinforcement within 8db...” moved.

Please use new crack and compression strut locations indicated in


red.

165 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

Labeled the individual drawings as: “(a) horizontal headed bars”


and “(b) vertical headed bars”. In figure (b) the dark region at the
upper right should be removed.

166 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

392. ACI Staff 769 9 Suggest changing title of (a) and (b). Possibly change from “(a) Agree.
Section 25.5.3.1a” to “(a) Lap splice satisfies 25.5.3.1a”.
Possibly change “(b) Section 25.5.3.1.1” to “(b) Lap splice Reason; Changing the titles will improve the clarity of the figures.
satisfies 25.5.3.1.1”. Current figure subtitles leave no
explanation unlike rest of Chapter 25 figure subtitles. Change title of Fig. R25.5.3.1(a): “(a) Section 25.5.3.1a Lap splice
satisfies 25.5.3.1a”. Change title of Fig. R25.5.3.1(b): “(b) Section
25.5.3.1.1 Lap splice satisfies 25.5.3.1.1”.
393. ACI Staff 775 8 Suggest calling out and showing “anchorage device” locations Agree, see sketch of Fig. R25.9.1.1a below, revisions in red.
similar to Fig. R25.9.1.1b.

167 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

168 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

Fig. R25.9.1.1a — Local and general zones.

394. ACI Staff 776 6 Suggest calling out and showing “anchorage device” locations Disagree, Figs. R25.9.1.1a and R25.9.1.1b make that clear enough
on similar to Fig. R25.9.1.1b. Also suggest calling out zones and inclusion here would make the figure too busy. Changed
similar to Fig. R25.9.1.1a to explain “general zone”. “Bursting forces” to “Bursting stresses” and “Spalling forces” to
“Spalling stresses” to better match title of figure.

169 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

stresses

stresses

Fig. R25.9.4—Tensile stress zones within the general zone.

170 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
395. Asit Baxi 779 0 Agree, see the attached revised Fig. R25.9.4.4.6. Also on page
759, line 12, change “loaded face” to “bearing face”.

This is detail (b) in Fig R25.9.4.4.6 – Anchorage zone


reinforcement for groups of ½” or smaller diameter tendons in
slabs

Show a thicker slab in the figure to highlight one of the


important reasons for this code change which was how to
detail the anchorage zone bars in thicker slabs. By showing the
thicker slab and larger full slab depth hairpins it will highlight
that a) the hairpins have to be full depth minus cover, b) the
bars at the corners of the hairpins are different from the
backup bars and c) the backup bars are to be placed within the
confines of the anchor

171 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

396. ACI Staff 779 2 Hairpin is a term not included in Chapter 2 notation. Suggest The term “hairpin” is currently defined in the ACI CT and has a
adding this term which is used in more than one place. number of definitions. The usage here is clear since it is shown in
a figure. Defining it in Chapter 2 will involve all usages in the
Code, which may be different than the usage here. No change.

172 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
397. Eric Koehler 783 17 Mineral filler should be in its own sub-section under 26.4.1 and Make change as recommended. This is an editorial change to the
not listed under aggregate. This is consistent with approved commentary.
changes for ACI 301 and ASTM C94. ACI 318 has specific
requirements that apply to “aggregate” that are not relevant to See edits in next cell.
and for which there are not suitable test methods for mineral
filler. For example, alkali-aggregate requirements are not
applicable. Meanwhile 26.4.1.2.1(b) requires “aggregate” to
conform to ASTM C33 or C330 or to have demonstrated
performance and be approved by the building official. This
would require “aggregates” fully meeting ASTM C1797 to be
approved further by the building official as they do not
conform to C33 or C330. This conflict can be resolved by
moving mineral filler to it own subsection under 26.4.1.
Response to Comment 397
As is in draft 318-19:
26.4.1.2 Aggregates
26.4.1.2.1 Compliance requirements:

(a) Aggregates shall conform to (1), (2), or (3) (1) or (2):


(1) Normalweight aggregate: ASTM C33.
(2) Lightweight aggregate: ASTM C330.
(3) Mineral fillers: ASTM C1797.

26.4.1.3 Mineral fillers

173 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
26.4.1.3.1 Compliance requirements:

(a) Shall comply with ASTM C1797. [CA181]

Renumber subsequent provisions.

For Commentary: Renumber and move provision to correct location.

R26.4.1.2.1(a)(3) Mineral fillers…

398. Ken Harmon 784 9 Please remove the sentence: (d) Crushed hydraulic-cement Delete referenced sentence.
lightweight concrete shall not be permitted [CA167]
Rational: (d) Crushed hydraulic-cement lightweight concrete shall not be
permitted.
Any aggregate derived from crushed concrete (whether
normalweight or lightweight) should be permitted as long
as it meets the requirements for gradation, Los Angeles
abrasion loss, sulfate soundness, contaminates, etc.

Further, this requirement is not realistic or practical to


enforce. Recycling operations accept containers and
dump truck loads of concrete rubble from many different
sites. This demolished concrete contains aggregates from
many different sources and there is no way to easily
174 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
identify the concrete as lightweight versus normalweight
before it goes into the system where it is broken down to
remove rebar, pvc, etc. and then crushed and screened.

399. Robinson 784 9 What is the basis for not allowing the use of crushed recycled See response to Comment 398, page 784, line 9, Harmon
lightweight concrete if it meets the specified requirements for
the application in its re-use?
400. Reid W. Castrodale 784 9 26.4.1.1.1(d) See response to Comment 398, page 784, line 9, Harmon
This article prohibits the use of recycled lightweight concrete.

What is the basis for not allowing the use of crushed recycled
lightweight concrete to be used? Recycled concrete is such an
unknown combination of various sources of concrete that
including lightweight concrete cannot be much different.

I could find no reference to a commentary section that would


explain this prohibition. Making such statements without
apparently justification is problematic.

This may not affect new construction but could affect life-cycle
assessments of a project if the concrete cannot be reused.
401. Reid W. Castrodale 787 16 Through line 18: Not accepted.
26.4.2.1(a) (15) Think you mean Table 19.2.4.
I find this requirement very interesting. The provision is written to the LDP who will know how lambda
was determined.
So after the project has been designed, the concrete supplier is The intent is for the concrete supplier to provide aggregate info
required to supply the volumetric fractions of aggregate. so the LDP can confirm assumptions made during design.
See response to comment 286. Page 530, line 6, Lobo.
How is the supplier going to know that Table 10.2.4.2 was used
for designing the structure so he would know to make this
submittal?

175 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
And what is the designer going to do with that information –
redesign the structure if his assumptions did not match those
of the concrete supplied?

Using this approach to define lambda just seems ludicrous to


me. It should be removed.
402. Reid W. Castrodale 787 17 26.4.2.1(a) (15) Accept as editorial change.
Remove space after “19.”
403. Colin Lobo 789 7 The title of this table seems incorrect without a percentage Accept comment.
indicated. Suggest “expansion strain” be revised to “length 1. Change title of table to: “Maximum expansion strain length
change” to be consistent with the terminology used in ASTM change for tests in accordance with ASTM C1012, %.”
C1012 and in the specifications for cementitious materials that 2. Delete “percent” in the cells of the table.
refer to this test method. Also consider stating “,%” in the title These are editorial changes to the code.”
rather in the requirements section.
404. Colin Lobo 790 4 Exposure Class W1 and W2 refer to concrete in contact with Accept comment. Change “moisture” to “water”.
water. This differs from exposed to “moisture in service”.
Consider changing this to “in contact with water” to be Note: Sub A will look at these definitions as new business to
consistent. ensure that definitions for exposure classes are consistent.
405. Greg Moody 790 21 What about admixtures with a trace amount of calcium New business.
chloride?
406. Greg Moody 790 24 Is “cement” referring to portland only, or all cementitious Accept. Editorial change.
material? Change to “cementitious materials”
This change approved by CA070 but got missed here.
407. Reid W. Castrodale 791 1 Through line 4 Partially accepted. Editorial change.
26.4.2.2
This provision is not clear. See below for proposed changes.

Possible revision: See also response to comment 426. Page 814, line 6, Castrodale.
For lightweight concrete, a fresh density corresponding to the
specified equilibrium density shall be established by the
concrete supplier. The fresh density shall be used as the basis
of acceptance.

176 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Response to Comment 407

For lightweight concrete, the fresh density shall be determined in accordance with ASTM C138 and correlated that corresponds
with the specified equilibrium density determined in accordance with ASTM C567. The fresh density correlated corresponding
to the specified equilibrium density shall be used as the basis of acceptance.
acceptance.

408. Greg Moody 791 3 Through line 4: Not accepted. This statement is only explaining why the
This acceptance criteria conflicts with the acceptance criteria correlation procedure is carried out. The acceptance criteria are
found in 26.12.5.1(d) (page 814, lines 5-7) in 26.12.5.1 as the comment points out.
409. Eric Koehler 792 27 Section 26.4.3.1(b) states that concrete mixtures shall be New business.
established based on Article 4.2.3 of ACI 301; however,
26.4.4.1(a) states that strength shall be based on field records
of the “same concrete mixture” or laboratory batches of “the
proposed mixture”. This is more stringent than ACI 301, which
allows interpolation between similar mixtures (e.g. 4.2.3.4(b)
and 4.2.3.4(c)(c) of ACI 301-16). Modern, large concrete
operations can have thousands of mixtures and interpolation
between mixtures to establish a new mixture is completely
acceptable. This conflict can be resolved by changing
26.4.4.1(1) to be consistent with ACI 301.
410. Mostafa Gad Alla 795 24 Through page 797 line 15, clause 26.5.3: Comment is not entirely clear. Think the commenter is asking for
In 26.5.3 Curing, membrane – forming curing compound is a list of curing methods for concrete placed by other than
mentioned in curing methods and it is mentioned only in curing shotcrete. Will be considered as new business. See comment
of shotcrete. 411. Page 796, line 1-3, Baty
Please refer to ACI 308R-16 clause 3.4.2.3 page 18.
411. James Baty, FACI 796 1 Through line 3: New business. Will seek input from ACI 308 on this comment.

177 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
This section has not seen appreciable language change for
decades, based on versions I have reviewed. This is now an
excessively-restrictive provision that interferes with means and
methods by professional contractors and producers. ACI 318
has broad application across the landscape of concrete
construction and limiting statements like this handcuff quality
installations when LDPs do not care to take the time or do not
feel they are paid to take the time to understand proposals in
accordance with item (c) found in lines 6-14. It also does not
allow a construction team to interrupt protection in
accordance with ACI 306 or 308. Proposed language to be:

(a) Concrete shall be maintained at a temperature of at


least 50˚F and in a moist condition for at least the first
7 days after placement unless a protection plan
conducive to the specific nature of the element and
environment is approved.

The commentary statement is often never engaged because


LDPs do not wish to take the liability or the time to understand
the variety of methods that are not available to demonstrate
sufficient strength gain for concrete in conditions less than
50˚F/moist.
412. Mostafa Gad Alla 796 4 Please provide clear definition for high early strength concrete, New business. Will seek input from ACI 308 on this comment.
as there is a clear definition for high strength concrete.
413. Mostafa Gad Alla 797 31 Please specify the concrete temperature limits in hot weather New business. Comments 413 and 414 should be linked to be
addressed. Will seek input from ACI 305 on this comment.
414. Mostafa Gad Alla 798 3 Through line 4: New business. Comments 413 and 414 should be linked to be
Please specify the concrete temperature limits in hot weather addressed. Will seek input from ACI 305 on this comment.
or at lease mention compliance with ACI 305 to avoid big
confusion with Engineer (consultants) especially in GCC area.
415. Robbie Hall 801 19 Through line 21 and page 802 lines 1 through 2 and page 841 Agreed. The tolerance has been revised to the following:
Chair, ACI 117-B lines 13 through 15:

178 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Voting Member, The introduction of this more restrictive tolerance is likely NEW CODE
CRSI Placing going to create situations where the tolerance is not 26.6.2.1 Design information:
Committee achievable. After discussing this issue with a number of (c) Tolerance for spacing of hoops and
Chair, CRSI contractors, rebar fabricators and rebar placers, my main spirals over one-half the distance from
Detailing areas of concern are as follows: the joint face given in 18.4.2.4,
Committee 18.6.4.1(a); one-half the distance above and below the critical
Vice Chair, CRSI 1) Many times, these elements are pre-tied in a section given in 18.10.6.2(b)(i), and over the distance given in
Manual of shop/yard and are flown into place upon arrival at the 18.4.3.3 and 18.7.5.1 in members of intermediate and special
Standard Practice jobsite. Pre-assembly provides the best opportunity seismic systems:
Committee to control uniform spacing at the specified value, but (1) +1/2 in. increase of larger of
it can still be difficult to maintain. longitudinal bar diameter and 1 in. Lesser of +1.5 in. and +1.5 db
2) Beyond pre-tying cages, the only way to improve the of the smallest longitudinal bar.
uniformity is to use a cage assembly/ welding (2) Lesser smaller of -1 in. per ft of least side dimension of
machine, which uses a thin wire that is welded member and -3 in.
between hoops to fix them in their correct locations (3) Spacing adjustments shall result
before the longitudinal bars are installed. The in no more than two hoops being in
proposed +1/2” tolerance has a good chance of being contact with each other.
achieved using this method, but many engineers do
not approve the use of this machine.
3) Commonly, ties/hoops in these elements are
detailed/fabricated/tied using serpentine ties
(continuously wrapped/overlapped ties) that are a
single piece of rebar vs. numerous individual
(outer/inner/cross) ties placed as a set. Either way
this is done, an offset of one bar diameter between
adjacent individual ties or adjacent legs on a
serpentine tie is created. This alone could result in
exceeding the new tolerance, making this fabrication
and placement method prohibited.
4) Over the last 8-10 years, the fundamental
characteristics of these types of reinforced concrete
elements has changed….moving to smaller diameter
longitudinal bars. This change has a drastic affect on

179 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
the rigidity of the cage and has caused an increase is
confinement reinforcing. This added congestion
makes installing the reinforcing difficult and makes
installing other items (horizontal reinforcing, cross
ties, intersecting slab/beam bars, inserts/embeds,
etc.) very time consuming and in some cases
impractical. Commonly the spacing of the ties/hoops
needs to be adjusted to accommodate these items,
but under the new tolerance, even a small adjustment
would exceed the allowable value.
5) The way the tolerance is currently setup, in many
cases, a tie/hoop being moved towards another by ½”
to 1”, it would exceed the allowable tolerance and
cause the succeeding ties to be moved, which may or
may not be possible depending on what else is already
installed. This becomes impractical and unachievable.
Recommendation:
ACI 318 committee should consider removing this new
tolerance from the 318-19 code cycle, and leaving this section
as written in 318-14 until further discussion can take place.
Since this is important for both design, construction, rebar
fabrication, and rebar installation professionals, this should be
discussed with representatives from ACI 117 Committee and
CRSI (specifically the Fabrication and Placing Committees) to
discuss concerns and come up with a solution that works for all
affected parties involved.

416. Jim Tkach – Largo 801 19 Through line 21: See response to Comment 415, page 801 line 19, Hall.
Concrete, Inc Request the new tolerance shown in 26.6.2.1 (c) NOT be
adopted at this time. A number of practical reasons warrant a
thorough discussion, including those listed here: The change,
as drafted…

180 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
- Significantly impacts production on standard concrete
elements.
- Affords the designer a false sense of precision.
- Ignores the practical reality of current construction
methods.
- Is not based on known industry research.
417. Eric Peterson – 801 19 Through line 21 and page 802 lines 1 through 2: See response to Comment 415, page 801 line 19, Hall.
Webcor Concrete Comments below are with respect to 26.6.2.1(c):

As Chair of ACI Committee 117, Tolerances for Concrete


Construction and Materials, I have been in contact with a
number of representatives of reinforcing steel subcontractors
who install reinforcing for members of intermediate and
special seismic systems. This said, the comments below are
mine, and do not necessarily represent those of the entire ACI
117 Committee. In most cases what is stated below is based
upon my own experience with the structures we build. The
installers I have been in contact with are very concerned with
the proposed new tolerances 26.6.2.1(c)(1, 2 & 3) as either
being impracticable or unachievable. Here are some of the
difficulties as I have experienced or understand them:

1. Hoops are placed for the referenced element types


mostly in a shop setting. Often times, the hoops are
fabricated into what is referred to as serpentine ties.
They are continuously wrapped and overlapped rather
than being discrete hoops. This facilitates the
production process, and eliminates numerous cross
ties, but also can initiate an offset of one hoop
diameter between adjacent wraps. This could result
in exceeding the new tolerance.
2. While the practice of assembling the hoops around
the longitudinal bars, in a fabrication facility provides

181 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
the best opportunity for uniform spacing, it is still a
difficult tolerance to maintain. The best means
available today involves using a cage assembly
machine which uses a thin wire which is welded
between hoops to fix them in their correct locations
before the longitudinal bars are installed. Using this
method the new +1/2” tolerance has a good chance of
being achieved. Many engineers do not approve the
use of this machine, however. Achieving this
tolerance consistently through manual assembly, even
in a shop would be difficult and costly.
3. Since approximately 2012, the fundamental character
of the reinforced elements for intermediate and
special seismic systems has changed. In the past the
longitudinal bars were heavier sections providing
rigidity to the assembled reinforcing. Now, relatively
small diameter longitudinal bars are in use
accompanied by in an increase in confinement
reinforcing. This added congestion has made the
installation of all other reinforcing and other items
which must be integrally part of the shear wall
systems more difficult. After the assembled cages and
longitudinal reinforced elements are installed, in their
physical locations in the structure, there are
subsequent operations which must be completed
prior to closing the formwork and placing concrete.
Some of these are:
a. Installing horizontal reinforcing;
b. Installing cross ties;
c. Installing link beam reinforcing;
d. Installing slab and beam bars;
e. Installing inserts;
f. Installing formwork anchors and ties;

182 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
g. Installing embedments and their anchors.
Any of these operations can necessitate the adjustment of the
pre-fabricated assembly. Even a small adjustment of hoop
spacing under these circumstances can exceed the tolerance
which ACI 318-19 has balloted. Again, maintaining hoop
spacing with these new tolerances, I believe, will be
impracticable if not unachievable.
4. The minus side tolerance is defined as being -1” per
width of the element in feet up to a maximum of -3”.
In reality, anytime a hoop is adjusted, it has a plus side
tolerance effect on one adjacent hoop and a
concurrent minus side tolerance effect on the other.
Therefore the +1/2” tolerance always governs, unless
multiple hoops are adjusted to reduce the effect of
exceeding the plus side tolerance. Moving a
succession of hoops may or may not be possible
because of the transverse, horizontal reinforcing,
cross ties and all other items described above (in 3.).
5. This is a question – What specific research was carried
out to determine the value of tolerance 26.6.2.1(c)(1)?
There are a lot of people I’ve discussed this with who
would like to know where this came from.
6. This is also a question – Was there discussion within
the Committee to assess the achievability of these
tolerances within our Industry? If so, what was the
determination and reasoning?
7. Please review the photo below. It depicts three wraps
of a serpentine tie for a single hoop layer. This
method is common in Industry practice now. With
respect to tolerances 26.6.2.1(c)(1 & 2) what would be
the method of tolerance evaluation (measuring
points). With respect to requirement 26.6.2.1(c)(3),

183 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
does this condition comply or does it not comply?
Clarity for both of these conditions would be helpful.

8. Finally, it concerns me, having been involved in our


Industry for over forty years that a ½” difference in
spacing of hoops can be the cause of a buckling
failure. What does this say about the robustness of
the structural system itself? Why would an installer
be the final link in the safety of this system with so
little room for dimensional deviation?

Since I am not a rebar installer, I may not have represented all


of the conditions which make this tolerance impracticable, as
well as they could be expressed by an installer. I would ask
Committee 318 to please reconsider these new tolerances
prior to the publication of ACI 318-19, and to allow time on
184 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
your Agenda for an open discussion of this matter in Quebec
City, Quebec at the next Convention. Perhaps a special break-
out session could be provided to determine a better path
forward.

Thank you.
418. Mike Mota 801 19 Through line 21: See response to Comment 415, page 801 line 19, Hall.
I have been in contact with a number of our member
companies who place reinforcing bars for structural members
in intermediate and special seismic systems, and the following
comments are based on these conversations. These placers
are very concerned with the proposed new tolerances; in short,
the message that has been conveyed to me is that the
proposed tolerances are either impracticable or unachievable.
Below is a summary of the issues:

9. Hoops for beams and columns in intermediate and special


moment frames are often fabricated in the shop as
serpentine ties, which are continuously wrapped and
overlapped (rather than fabricated as individual hoops).
This facilitates the production process and eliminates the
need for numerous crossties. This method initiates an offset
of one hoop diameter between adjacent wraps, which could
result in exceeding the new tolerance, thereby making this
fabrication process prohibited.
10.One of the best ways to achieve uniform spacing of hoops in
a fabrication shop is to use a cage assembly machine, which
uses a thin wire that is welded between hoops to fix them in
their correct locations before the longitudinal bars are
installed. The proposed +1/2” tolerance has a good chance
of being achieved using this method, but many engineers do
not approve the use of this machine.

185 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
11.The modern design trend in intermediate and special
moment frame members is to use relatively small diameter
longitudinal bars with relatively heavier amounts of
confinement reinforcement. This results in congestion and
makes installing all other reinforcing and other items much
more difficult. Maintaining hoop spacing under these
revised tolerances will exacerbate this condition and will
make it virtually impossible to install the reinforcement.
Furthermore, installing other items─including reinforcement
(such as for slabs, beams, crossties, and link beams between
shear walls), inserts, formwork anchors and ties, and
embedment anchors─necessitates the adjustment of the
prefabricated cages. The proposed tolerances can easily be
exceeded where these small adjustments need to be made.
12.The proposed minus side tolerance of -1” per width of the
element in feet up to a maximum of -3” is highly impractical
and cannot be achieved under typical conditions. For
example, if the plus side of the tolerance is ½”, and a hoop
is being adjusted in one direction, moving one hoop
towards the adjacent hoop by 1” exceeds the minus
tolerance from the adjacent hoop. This would require
moving succeeding hoops, which may or may not be
possible because of the transverse reinforcement,
horizontal reinforcement, and crossties, to name a few.

It is proposed that the existing tolerances for this


reinforcement remain as is until further discussion or research
can warrant a change.

Thank you.
419. Michael Sipes – 801 19 Through line 21 and page 802 lines 1 through 2: See response to Comment 415, page 801 line 19, Hall.
Regional Vice As Regional Vice President of a Furnish & Installation
contractor in Northern California - a region widely known for

186 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
President, Pacific the most demanding seismic engineering conditions - the
Steel Group proposed tolerance language is impractible. The placing of
reinforcing steel bars being our primary business, tolerance(s)
appropriate with the work are paramount to a successful
assembly of special seismic systems. If only assembling
boundary columns or frame beams were in question, the
proposed tolerance would be difficult to impossible, at best. In
consideration that the reinforcing steel must also share space
with embeds, inserts, electrical connections, plumbing
penetrations and forming systems, the balloted tolerances
houses restrictions such that constructing seismic elements will
be set up for failure before a single bar is placed.

The current code provides tolerances that allow the


aforementioned items to cohabitate with the reinforcing steel
designed. Structural Engineers of Record have the ability to
prescribe more stringent tolerances in critical components of
the work where deemed necessary/appropriate. With
knowledge that the proposed tolerance changes come from a
need to restrict buckling, it would be my assertion that the
SEOR can design special seismic systems such that the size of
the primary members will eliminate buckling concerns and
allow constructible containment tie spacings. The SEOR always
has the ability to review conditions where inserts, penetrations
or construction methods require modifications to the final
position of containment reinforcing (often larger than the
detailed spacing but less than the detailed spacing plus
allowable tolerance).

Up to this point, I have commented on only the seismic system


components themselves, but it is just as important to consider
that these components typically work together with adjacent
members such as shear walls, header beams, beams and more.

187 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
In the case of a boundary element, wall reinforcing must be
placed adjacent to and connect the wall to the boundary
element with horizontal reinforcing. This horizontal reinforcing
is typically detailed with a standard right angle that does not fit
into the detailed tie spacing in conjunction with the detailed
vertical reinforcing without adjustments. Another example is
when two seismic system members join together; a frame
beam and frame column for example.

Equally important is an accurate interpretation of the code and


SEOR’s requirements as it relates to 3rd Party Inspections.
Over the course of 20+ years in the Reinforcing Steel industry, I
have first-hand experience with Inspectors holding tolerance
concerns to an impractical level creating an environment
where installation failure is guaranteed.

Tolerances with minuscule tolerances will mandate that


mechanical assembly by use of technology, welding etc. are the
only option to reinforcing steel installers. Often times, the
equipment required to perform this are either a) not approved
on seismic elements or b) not accessible to all installers. This
will create an environment where installers are precluded from
an opportunity to construct projects simply due to their lack of
technology.

In an effort to not only speak to reasons for not approving the


currently balloted tolerance changes, I would like to propose
that the current language not be modified, but encourage
SEOR’s to design the primary components such that seismic
system confinement can be detailed such that these current
tolerances work. SEOR’s can also direct installers or
constructors when conditions exist where tighter tolerances
are required.

188 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
420. Owen Brizgys, 801 19 Through line 21: See response to Comment 415, page 801 line 19, Hall.
Construction 26.6.2.1.c
Manager
The change to a more stringent tolerance on spacing of
confinement ties seems like an overreach that will significantly
impact the economy of Reinforced Concrete Structures in my
area (California).

What is the reason or research behind this?

Is buckling bars the concern? I would like to see research. If tie


spacing is 5.5” and goes to 8.5” (old 3” rule) on a #10 bar
because of constructability (ties, embeds, fabrication) would
result in a negligible reduction in buckling capacity when
compared to the ultimate strength of the bar. This is typical
confinement spacing for vertical elements in my area. When
spacing is increased on one tie spacing, the spacing on the one
above or below is decreased and the buckling capacity of this
bar is at best, very hard to understand. Now put this in an array
of vertical core wall steel and the problem becomes extremely
complex and from the looks of it robust and redundant.

Spalling Concrete – wouldn’t this be a function of thickness?


Research needs to show that given the spacing that is currently
in place, this creates a situation of unnecessary risk of concrete
that needs addressing.

Could an alternative be:

None more than +3” on any hoop


Not more than 25% more than +1/2”

189 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Somehow we need to not look at each tie/vertical as a single,
fragile element but as a robust and redundant system that has
resiliency when a few ties are more largely spaces.

The ACI should work to create research and methods to


simplify, reduce and better understand the requirements on
confinement reinforcing. It has become a driving force on the
economy of these systems and the intuition of the contractor
says compared to other structural types there seems adequate
overstrength in these elements. How can we help!?

Some photos that show typical seismic systems and tie


spacing.:

190 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

191 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

421. Catherine French 804 16 In 26.7.1(h), the reference to 17.6 and 17.7 does not seem to Agree
be correct.
Code Change:
26.7—Anchoring to concrete
26.7.1 Design information

(h) For post-installed anchors, parameters associated with the


design strength in accordance with 17.5 17.6 and 17.7, including
anchor category, concrete strength, aggregate type, required
installation torque, and requirements for hole drilling
preparation.

192 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
422. Reid W. Castrodale 804 22 26.7.1(i) Agree
For adhesive anchors, the type of lightweight concrete is listed
as information that is needed. This is reasonable (if it is Page 804, Line 17 & 18:
possible to determine the type or density if the anchor is to be “with 17.6 and 17.7 17.4 and 17.5 including anchor category,
post-installed) since Article 17.6.4 includes type of lightweight concrete strength, aggregate type, type of lightweight concrete,
concrete. required installation torque, and requirements for hole drilling
preparation.”
However, the type of lightweight concrete (or its density) is
also required for other conditions listed in Table 17.2.4.1.

Therefore, the type of lightweight concrete (or its density)


must also be required for Article 26.7.1 (h), and possibly for
other articles, if it is indeed appropriate for this article.
423. Greg Moody 811 12 Is “at least” referring to the number of cores or to the diameter Editorial change. At least refers to the number of cores.
of the core? Is the 3-inch diameter actual diameter or nominal Change to code to read: “…at least three 3‐in.
diameter? ASTM C1140 refers to ASTM C42, which requires nominal diameter cores…”
cores to have a diameter at of at least 3.70 inches. (6.1)
424. Greg Moody 813 1 Reference to 26.12.4 (acceptance criteria for shotcrete) does Accepted. Editorial change.
not make sense. I believe the reference should be to 26.12.6
425. Greg Moody 814 6 Change “4” to “4.0” to correspond with the reporting accuracy Accepted. Editorial change.
of ASTM C138.
426. Reid W. Castrodale 814 6 26.12.5.1(d) Accept. Editorial change.
Recommended revision:
“… fresh density correlated corresponding to …” See also response to comment 407. Page 791, line 1, Castrodale
427. David P. Gustafson 817 26 Replace “reinforcing steel” with “reinforcement”. Agree

Page 817, Line 26:


“26.13.2.4 Verify Test reports shall be verified to confirm for
weldability of reinforcing steel reinforcement . . “
428. Catherine French 821 10 I think that the compliance and inspection requirements have Agree
now all moved into Chapter 26. Please review and update to
reflect the changes that have been made. Delete R26.1.1 in its entirety.

193 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
R26.1.1 Chapter 17, Anchoring to Concrete, also contains design
information, compliance requirements, and inspection
requirements for anchoring to concrete

429. ACI Staff 827 13 Suggest decoupling statement “This same tolerance is Stated comment not accepted. No change.
acceptable for shotcrete”. 26.4.2.1(a)(6) does not reference 26.4.2.1(a) applies to all concrete regardless of how it is placed.
shotcrete air entrainment requirements. Suggest adding
shotcrete air entrainments tolerance provision elsewhere. Additional editorial change: 26.4.2.1(a)(6) should be modified to
read “…from 19.3.3.1 or 19.3.3.3.”
The commentary points out where the tolerance for air is
specified.
430. Eric Koehler 827 22 The requirement for “calcium carbonate content” is unclear. Accepted. Delete last sentence in R26.4.2.1(a)(8), page 827, line
The commentary allows up to 15% calcium carbonate from 22.”
cement and mineral filler, but many mineral filler sources
complying with ASTM C1797 are not pure calcium carbonate, These same criteria are used to permit the use of blended
so there could be more than 15% limestone added (e.g. 20% of cements conforming to ASTM C595 that contain up to 15%
a material that is 75% calcium carbonate). ASTM C595 requires limestone in concrete exposed to sulfates.
70% calcium carbonate for limestone used in blended cements
and the limit of 15% is not on calcium carbonate but on
limestone (15% of a limestone with 70% calcium carbonate
would be 10.5% calcium carbonate). The 15% requirement in
ASTM C595 is based on mass of total blended cement, but the
15% requirement in 318 is based on cementitious material not
including mineral filler, which is correct because mineral filler is
often used to not replace cement. So, the last sentence of
R26.4.2.1(a)(8) stating that the criteria is the same as ASTM
C595 is not accurate and should be removed.
431. Reid W. Castrodale 828 11 Through line 13: Accept. Editorial change.
R26.4.2.1(a)
Recommended revision to third sentence:
“Acceptance of lightweight concrete at the time of delivery is
based on a fresh density determined by the concrete supplier
that has been correlated with the equilibrium density.”

194 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
432. Reid W. Castrodale 828 17 R26.4.2.1(a) Change made.
Editorial – some characters are not displaying correctly.
433. Eric Koehler 832 3 The commentary states that the code does not address AAR, Delete “alkali-aggregate reactions” on page 832, line 3.”
but provisions were added to 26.4.2.1(a)(12) of the Code in this
version. The Code does not include provisions for especially severe
exposures, such as chemical
contact, high temperatures, temporary freezing-and-thawing
conditions during construction,
abrasive conditions, alkali-aggregate reactions, or other unique
durability considerations pertinent to the structure.
434. Catherine French 844 25 There are a number of issues with the Code and Commentary Agree
sections not corresponding. Please review. I have identified
some examples. The commentary listed under R26.7.1(f) does The following changes should be made for proper Commentary
not seem to go with the code section 26.7.1(f). In ACI 318-14, alignment:
this is commentary to 17.8.1. Please revisit where this should
be located in ACI 318-19. Changed:
R26.7.1(f) to R26.7.1(h)
R26.7.1(g) to R26.7.1(i)
R26.7.1(j) to R26.7.1(l)
Deleted R26.7.2(a)
R26.7.2(b) to R26.7.2(c)
R26.7.2(d) to R26.7.2(e)
R26.7.2(e) to R26.7.2(f)

435. Catherine French 844 32 The commentary listed under R26.7.1(g) does not seem to go Agree
with the code section 26.7.1(g).
It is about adhesive anchors and should be changed to See response to French Comment 434 page 844 line 25.
R26.7.1(i):

195 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

436. Catherine French 846 8 The commentary listed under R26.7.2(b) does not seem to go Agree
with the code section 26.7.2(b)—it should be changed to
R26.7.2(c): 26.7.1(h) For post-installed anchors, parameters associated with
the design strength in accordance with 17.6 and 17.7, including
anchor category, concrete strength, aggregate type, required
installation torque, and requirements for hole drilling and
preparation.

R26.7.2(b) The Manufacturer’s Printed Installation Instructions


(MPII) contain information required for the proper installation of
post-installed anchors. Additional requirements may apply for
specific cases in accordance with 26.7.1(f) and 26.7.1(g). For
adhesive anchors, application dependent requirements for
qualification of installers and inspection requirements may apply.

437. Catherine French 846 13 The commentary listed under R26.7.2(d) does not seem to go Agree
with the code section 26.7.2(d)—it should be changed to

196 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
R26.7.2(e) AND the reference within R26.7.2(d) should be to Part 1 – See response to Comment #434 where “R26.7.2(d)
26.7.1(l) NOT 26.7.1(j): should be R26.7.2(e).”

Part 2 – See below:


Commentary Change
R26.7.2(de) Many anchor performance characteristics depend on
proper installation of the anchor. Horizontally or upwardly inclined
adhesive anchors resisting sustained tension load are required to
be installed by personnel certified for the adhesive anchor system
and installation procedures being used. Construction personnel
can establish qualifications by becoming certified through
certification programs. Refer to R26.7.1(j).

438. Catherine French 846 19 The commentary listed under R26.7.2(e) does not seem to go Agree
with the code section 26.7.2(e)—it should be changed to
R26.7.2(f): See response to French Comment 434 page 844 line 25.

439. Reid W. Castrodale 854 4 R26.12.5 Partially accepted. Editorial change.


Recommended revision to first sentence: Change to read: “… is intended to account…”
“… equilibrium density, wc, should account for variations …”
440. Reid W. Castrodale 854 5 R26.12.5 Accept. Editorial change.
Recommended revision to second sentence:
“The impact of the tolerance in density on the value of lambda
…”
441. Reid W. Castrodale 854 7 R26.12.5 Not accepted. Proposed change does not make an improvement.
Recommend adding this sentence at end of paragraph:
“Reducing the tolerance on fresh density is not
recommended.”
442. David P. Gustafson 870 5 Consider replacing “carry” with “support”. Change “carry” to “resist”:

197 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
“R27.4.6.1 It is important to apply the load at locations so the
effects on the suspected deficiency are a maximum and sharing
of the applied load with unloaded members is minimized. In
cases where it is shown by analysis that adjoining unloaded
member will help carry resist some of the load, the test load
should be adjusted to produce appropriate load effects in the
critical region of the members being evaluated. “
443. Reid W. Castrodale 870 23 R27.4.6.5 Disagree. The term “unit weight” is typically used. Leave as is.
The term “unit weight” is used instead of density. Perhaps this
is the preferred term when describing loads. I had not noticed
that whether the term had been used elsewhere in the code.
444. Salem Faza 879 26 The referenced standard is an old one. The latest ASTM A1035 Accepted. Standards are being updated.
Specification reference is 2016b, ASTM A1035M-16b
445. Tennis 880 21 ASTM C150/C150M-18 is published and should be referenced. Change to 2019 edition.
C150/C150M-19 has been approved and will be published in
April 2019; should be referenced depending on the publication
schedule for ACI 318.
446. Tennis 881 3 ASTM C595/C595M-18 is published and should be referenced. Change to 2019 edition.
C595/C595-19 has been approved and will be published in April
2019; should be referenced depending on the publication
schedule for ACI 318.
447. Tennis 881 26 ASTM C1157/C1157M-17 is published and should be Accepted. Standards are being updated.
referenced.
448. Tennis 882 27 Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures 16th edition has been Accept as editorial change.
published and is referenced on page 902. Recommend this
citation be updated.
449. Thomas Sputo - 883 24 Change date of Standard from C-2011 to C-2017. The 2017 Accepted. Standards are being updated.
Steel Deck Institute edition is referenced in IBC 2017 and will be retained into IBC
- 2020
tsputo50@gmail.co
m

198 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
450. Thomas Sputo - 883 25 Change date of Standard from C-2010 to C-2017. The 2017 Accepted. Standards are being updated.
Steel Deck Institute edition is referenced in IBC 2017 and will be retained into IBC
- 2020
tsputo50@gmail.co
m
451. Saman Abdullah 883 28 Change year to 2019. It will be published in the January 2019 Agreed.
issue of ACI St. Journal. This was confirmed with ACI St. Journal. Change date of publication from 2018 to 2019

Abdullah S, Wallace JW, “Drift Capacity of Structural Walls with


Special Boundary Elements (2018),” ACI Structural Journal,
accepted for publication (May 7, 2018),
452. Fiorato 887 9 Bibliographic information is not complete and format is not Accepted. Editorial change to what is shown in red in previous
correct. column.

Bezerra-Cabral, Antonio Eduardo; Schalch, Valdir; Carpena


Coitinho; DalMolin, Denise; Duarte-Ribeiro, José Luis, 2010,
“Mechanical properties modeling of recycled aggregate
concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 24, No. 4,
April, pp. 421- 430.

453. David Darwin 894 29 The reference by Ghimire, Darwin and O’Reilly is not cited in Agree.
the commentary and should be deleted.
Reason: This reference is not cited.
Change: Ghimire, K.; Darwin, D.; and O’Reilly, M., 2018,
“Anchorage of Headed Reinforcing Bars,” SM Report No. 127,
University of Kansas Center for Research, Lawrence, KS, Jan., 278
pp.
454. Andres Lepage 897 28 Delete reference to Huq et al. (2018) on Page 897 Lines 28-30. Delete the redundant reference.
This reference is already on Page 898 Lines 16-18.

199 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
Huq M. S.: Burgos, E. A.: Lequesne, R. D.: and Lepage, A., 2018,
“High-Strength Steel Bars in T-shaped Concrete Walls,” Eleventh
U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Los
Angeles, CA.

455. Andres Lepage 898 14 The list of references show a few items out of alphabetical order, Change made.
for example:
Hwang and Moehle (2000) Page 898 Lines 14-15, Ichinose (1995)
Page 898 Line 1. The overall list needs to be checked.

456. Tennis 911 30 Through line 31: Accept as editorial change. Coordinate with comment 448 page
Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures 16th edition has been 882 line 27.
published. Recommend this citation be updated.
457. Saman Abdullah 915 2 Change to “Segura, CL and Wallace JW (2018a), “Seismic Agreed.
performance limitations and detailing of slender RC walls,” ACI Change reference as shown in the comment.
Structural Journal, 115(3), pp. 849-859. doi:
10.14359/51701918”
458. David Darwin 916 1 The last author is missing for this reference. It should be Agree.
changed as follows:
Sperry, J., Yasso, S., Searle, N., DeRubeis, M., Darwin, D., Sperry, J., Yasso, S., Searle, N., DeRubeis, M., Darwin, D., O’Reilly,
O’Reilly, M., Matamoros, A., Feldman, L., Lepage, A., and M., Matamoros, A., Feldman, L., Lepage, A., and Lequesne, R.,
Lequesne, R., and Ajaam, A., 2017a, “Conventional and High- and Ajaam, A., 2017a, “Conventional and High-Strength Hooked
Strength Hooked Bars—Part 1: Anchorage Tests,” ACI Bars—Part 1: Anchorage Tests,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 114,
Structural Journal, V. 114, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2017, pp. 255-266. No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2017, pp. 255-266.

459. Andres Lepage 919 9 To support above comments (to Page 466 Line 4 and Page 573 Change made.
Line 17), add new reference:
Weber-Kamin, A. S., Lequesne, R. D., and Lepage, A., (2019). “RC
Weber-Kamin, A. S., Lequesne, R. D., and Lepage, A., (2019). Coupling Beams with High-Strength Steel Bars: Summary of Test
“RC Coupling Beams with High-Strength Steel Bars: Summary of Results,” SL Report 19-1, The University of Kansas Center for
Test Results,” SL Report 19-1, The University of Kansas Center Research, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas, September, 132 pp.
for Research, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas, September, 132 pp.

The reference is available (free download) at


https://iri.ku.edu/reports
200 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name

460. Carson Baker (CPL) 932 15 Line number is estimate, Table A.9.1: At the time Appendix X was drafted and approved by Committee
Grade 80 and Grade 100 bars provisions have now been 318 there was not available test data that would have supported
introduced throughout ACI 318-19. However expected the inclusion of the values requested. Based on statistical
strengths have not been provided for A615 Grade 80 bars, information collected by Subcommittee R, which provided
A615 Grade 100 bars, or A1035 Grade 100 bars. Specification information to modify Table A.9.1 of Appendix A, Subcommittee
of expected strengths is required for modeling expected N approved the inclusion of the aforementioned information as a
response in NLRHA procedures, and would be helpful if response to the comments received.
provided.
Subcommittee N requests to approve the modification shown of
Table A.9.1 as a substantive change:
Table A.9.1 Expected material strengths
Material Expected strength
Concrete fce = 1.3 fc 1
Reinforcing Steel Expected Yield Strength, f ye , psi Expected Tensile Strength, fue , psi
Grade 60 70,000 106,000
A615 Grade 80 90,000 120,000
Grade 100 108,000 138,000
Grade 60 69,000 95,000
A706 Grade 80 85,000 112,000
Grade 100 105,000 133,000
A1035 Grade 100 131,000 165,000
1
Expected strength fce is strength expected at approximately one year or longer.

461. David P. Gustafson 934 6 Line number is estimate, fourth line of RA.10.2: The 318 Committee thanks the commenter for the suggestion. Loss
Sixth line from the top of the page - Consider replacing of gravity load carrying capacity depends on several factors and is
“carrying capacity” with “strength”. not limited to just strength. The test data to be used to establish the
ultimate deformation capacity is related to the Collapse Prevention
Acceptance Criteria in ACI 369.1 and ASCE/SEI 41. The
Committee prefers the way it is written and the direct link to the
referred documents. No change made.

462. Carson Baker (CPL) 936 6 Line number is estimate, A.11.3: The 318 Committee unlinked the approach implemented in ASCE
Per TBI and LATBSDC provisions, the Bias factor is taken as 1.0 7 of modifying the strength reduction factors, clearly within the
unless explicitly computed per the equation provided. However domain of Committee 318, and combining them into the Bias
in ACI 318-19 only equation A.11.3 is provided. Is it the intent factor. Notwithstanding, a default value of 1.0 is set. It shall be
of the committee that the Bias factor is always to be permitted, to compute the Bias factor through equation (A.11.3)
computed, and could even be required to be taken as less than

201 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

No. Public Commenter Pg # Line # Public Comment Committee Response


Name
1.0? If not, language should be added such that the bias factor but a lower limit of 1.0 is added to equation A.11.3. The
need not be taken as less than 1.0. corresponding section A.11.3 has been modified to:

Section A.11.3 shall be modified to the following, as a substantive


change:
Original section A.11.3 as balloted and approved was:
A.11.3 Bias factor, B , shall be calculated by:

B = 0.9Rne Rn (A.11.3)

New proposed section is:

A.11.3 Bias factor, B , shall be taken as 1.0. Alternatively, it shall be permitted to calculate B using
equation (A.11.3).

B = 0.9Rne Rn  1.0 (A.11.3)

463. Subcommittee B A/C The original language of 26.7.2 was correct before a change Public Comment Version Language:
proposal caused it to be struck. Reinsert language as shown in
26.7.2. 26.7.2 Compliance requirements:

(ac) Post-installed anchors shall be installed in accordance with the


manufacturer’s instructions. Post-installed adhesive anchors shall
be installed in accordance with the Manufacturer’s Printed
Installation Instructions (MPII).

Should actually be:

(c) Post-installed anchors shall be installed in accordance with the


manufacturer’s instructions. Post-installed adhesive anchors shall
be installed in accordance with the Manufacturer’s Printed
Installation Instructions (MPII).

202 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

I have just summarized the requirements of Draft ACI 318-19 for the use of high strength rebar in tabular form.

203 of 215
Document: ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
Public Discussion Period: December 21, 2018 to February 4, 2019

204 of 215
Comment on lap splices in ordinary walls - William Pollalis, Santiago Pujol, Robert Frosch

The figure below shows drift capacities measured in the tests described in the appendix to this note. In all test
specimens, lap splices meeting the new ACI 318 code1 were subjected to tension in areas with either constant or
varying moment. Cross sections and bar configurations resembled what may be found near boundaries of structural
walls with rectangular cross sections and no special confining hoops.2

In all tests3, failure has been abrupt and has been caused by bursting stresses related to bond along lap splices in
longitudinal bars. The test results suggest that the code, as it stands, would produce lap splices leading to bar
stresses equal or higher than the yield stress. Yielding, however, does not always result in adequate deformation
capacity. Deformation capacity depends not only on bar stress but also on how pronounced strain hardening is 4,
how curvature is distributed 5 along the length of the element, and the effect of load cycles. Code provisions for bond
have focused on bar force or stress almost exclusively, with little attention to deformability. This note deals with
seismic applications, and in those, deformability (strain instead of stress in the bar) is the key factor to ensure
adequate performance.

From the figure below, a simple linear projection of the measured drifts suggests that (for minimal detailing and
cover, and for cyclic loads) the proposed 318-19 code may produce structural walls with drift capacities as low as ½
to 1%. The new provisions ban the use of lap splices near bases of special structural walls. That is likely to address
our concern in such walls. But ‘ordinary walls,’ although not addressed for seismic applications in the ACI318 code,
can still be used in regions of moderate seismicity. In those walls, lap splices can be used near wall bases for grades
as high as 100 ksi.

Given:
1) The great uncertainty related to the prediction of ground motion,
2) The need to rely on ductile response to produce structures that can survive earthquakes,
3) The catastrophic nature of splice failure,
4) That bar stress and strain do not increase linearly with increases in development length,
5) The introduction of higher steel grades that may require developing stresses nearly twice as high as those
reached in Grade-60 bars,

we are convinced ACI 318 should prevent the use of lap splices in longitudinal bars near bases of structural walls in
all seismic applications regardless of the classification of the wall especially for bar grades higher than 60 ksi.

1Required splice length ls was estimated using nominal yield stress fy, measured concrete strength f’c, an assumed value n=2 (for
number of bars on potential splitting plane) and this expression (with cb+Ktr reaching up to 2.3db):

2 Confining hoops are likely to lead to better results but in ‘ordinary structural walls’ they are not required.
3 Funded by the Charles Pankow Foundation
4 Depending on how much strain hardening there is, a bar stress higher than yield stress may or may not result in strain sufficient

to achieve a required deformation or drift.


5 Lap splices tend to concentrate curvatures in small regions magnifying the problem of deformability.

205 of 215
206 of 215
Appendix

Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 1 to 7 describe the specimens discussed in the public comment. All specimens were
fabricated using normal-weight concrete with the nominal proportions listed in Table 2. All specimens were cured
under wet burlap for 3 to 21 days to control concrete strength. Dimension tolerances did not exceed ¼”. All
specimens use #8 longitudinal reinforcing bars. Steel reinforcing bars were reported to meet ASTM A615 and
additionally meet ASTM A706 mechanical requirements. Values of concrete strength f'c (at age of testing) and fy
reported in Table 1 were averages of at least 3 tested samples.

Beams denoted with the letter T were cast “upside down”, with the lap splices located near the bottom of the
formwork. Other specimens were cast “on their sides” to limit the casting depth to less than 12 in. Casting positions
were selected to minimize “top casting effects”.

Beams were tested under four-point bending, subjecting lap splices to tension in a constant moment region between
the intermediate forces. Test wall W-60-U was “fixed” at its base while subjected to uniaxial cyclic lateral forces
(along its plane) and axial loading of 400 kips (equivalent to approximately 0.1P n). Lap splices in the test wall were
located at the base of the wall.

Applied forces were measured with transducers with accuracies of up to 200 lbf. Displacements were measured
with devices reliable to 0.01 in. Reported drift ratios are the maximum lateral displacement (midspan for the beam
and top of specimen for the wall) divided by half the span of the constant moment region in beams and divided by
the wall height in structural wall test.

207 of 215
Table 1 - Specimen Properties

Moment Transverse Span b fy Nominal c Atr ls required by Tested/ Drift


Series Specimen ID h (in) f'c (ksi) b 2 s (in) ls (db)
Gradient Reinf. Detail (ft) (in) (ksi) fy (ksi) (in) (in ) 318-19 (db) Required Ratio (%)
Richter T-60-8-A Constant Minimal 10 30 8 65 60 4.3 1.3 0.22 5 60 41 1.5 1.3%
(2012) T-60-8-B Constant Minimal 10 30 8 66 60 4.1 0.8 0.22 5 60 54 1.1 0.6%
T-60-8-D Constant Minimal 10 30 8 63 60 5.9 1.3 0.22 10 60 44 1.4 1.0%
Hardisty
T-60-8-E Constant Minimal 10 30 8 63 60 5.2 1.3 0.22 10 60 47 1.3 1.0%
(2015)
T-60-8-F Constant Minimal 10 30 8 63 60 6.3 1.3 0.22 10 60 42 1.4 0.9%
WB-60-U0 Constant Minimal 14 48 10 60 60 5.4 1.6 0.22 6 60 34 1.8 2.2%
WB-60-U1 Constant Improved 14 48 10 72 60 5.8 1.6 0.22 6 50 33 1.5 3.0%
WB-60-U2 Constant Improved 14 48 10 72 60 6.0 1 0.22 6 60 44 1.4 3.3%
WB-60-U3 Constant Improved 14 48 10 72 60 6.2 1 0.22 6 60 43 1.4 3.2%
Pollalis
WB-60-U4 Constant Improved 14 48 10 72 60 5.6 1 0.22 6 60 45 1.3 2.5%
(2018)
WB-60-U5 Constant Minimal 14 48 10 72 60 5.7 1 0.22 6 60 45 1.3 1.4%
WB-80-U1 Constant Improved 14 48 10 90 80 5.3 1 0.4 12 80 74 1.1 1.7%
WB-80-U2 Constant Improved 14 48 10 90 80 5.2 1 0.4 12 80 75 1.1 1.3%
W-60-U Varying Improved 33 84 10 72 60 5.3 1 0.22 6 60 46 1.3 1.9%

Table 2 - Nominal concrete mix proportions

Cement #8 crushed pea


Series Sand (lb) water (lb) w/c
(lb) stone (lb) gravel (lb)
Richter (2012) 430 1600 0 1800 220 0.512
Hardisty (2015) 430 1600 0 1800 220 0.512
Pollalis (2018) 460 1500 1800 0 250 0.543

208 of 215
Figure 1 - ‘Minimum’ reinforcement detailing (Richter 2012, Hardisty 2015, Pollalis 2018)

209 of 215
Figure 2 - ‘Improved’ reinforcement detailing (Pollalis 2018)

210 of 215
Figure 3 - Beam (constant moment) test setup

211 of 215
Figure 4 - Beam test splice failure

212 of 215
213 of 215
Figure 5 - Structural wall (varying moment) test setup

Figure 6 - Structural wall splice failure

214 of 215
Figure 7 - Structural wall load vs displacement

References

Hardisty, J. N., Villalobos, E., Richter, B. P., and Pujol, S. (2015). “Lap
splices in unconfined boundary elements.” Concrete International, 37(1), 51 –58
Richter, 2012, “A New Perspective on the Tensile Strength of Lap Splices in Reinforced Concrete Members.” Master’s thesis, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN

215 of 215