Minutes - June 1, 2013
2013 MSJC Reinforcement & Connectors Subcommittee
2:30-5:30pm
Coast Coal Harbour Hotel, Coal Harbour A Room, Vancouver BC
1.
2.
3.
Welcome
Attendance/Membership
Voting members: David Biggs, Tom Corcoran, Terry Curtis, Matt Jackson, Mark
McGinley, David McLean, Max Porter
Others: John Swink, Andy Dalrymple, Andrew Geister, John McCall, Sarah Rogers, Paul
Curtis, Art Schultz
Announcements
a. 2016 Committee and Chair announcements - incoming chair of R&C committee is
Fernando Fonseca
b. Executive Subcommittee
1.
Volunteers needed to proofread 2013 final draft. Speak to Phil and Diane.
2.
Provide changes to PC responses – any changes from results from Main
10.
3.
Request Main 11 items.
4.
Max Porter - editor.
5.
This is last meeting of 2013 subcommittee. Official discharge is in fall but
there will be no meeting. Subcommittee members should continue to vote;
R&C will only have Minutes to approve.
6.
Minutes of this meeting are due mid-July.
7.
2016 MSJC Meeting October 13-15, 2013 in Herndon, VA.
c. Main 11 ballots due to editors June 10. Comments back by June 14. Ballots to Andy
by June 17.
4.
Approval of Fall 2012 Minutes - completed, previously approved by email vote Oct. 1,
2012.
5.
Old Business:
a.
MAIN 08 RESULTS
08-R-012 Failed with 2 negatives + comments for new business
Affirmative with Comment
Richard,Bennett It seems like there should be a reference to the new Figure in the
commentary.
John,Chrysler
Please correct diagram. The maximum 135 degrees that is indicated shows an
angle that exceeds 135 degrees by a fair amount.
Keith,Itzler
The diagram is not a reasonable representation of masonry construction and could
cause confusion. Going to the trouble of adding a diagram should make things
clearer, this does not. Make the diagram applicable to masonry or consider
omitting it.
Negative
Edwin,Huston
I believe that the 135 degree bend DOES apply to the hooks at the ends of ties.
There are well documented failures to buildings in Chile and in other locations
where the hooks at the ends of the ties did not provide sufficient confinement.
Rochelle,Jaffe
1.
Although columns are required to have laterally tied longitudinal
reinforcement, pilasters are not. Also, columns may be formed with brick units, not
just block units. Delete the phrase “(pilaster/column block)”.
2.
If masonry units are to be identified in the figure, the grout should also be
identified.
08-R-015 Passed - done
08-R-016 Passed; 1 comment for new business
Affirm with comment
Rochelle Jaffe
Relocate the arrow head for the 45 degree arrow so that it is not at the intersection
of the arc and the dimension line.
08-R-019 Failed with 1 negative + 1 comment for new business
Affirm with Comment
Rochelle Jaffe
Insert a comma after “respectively” in the last line of the commentary.
Negative
Jason Thompson
Commentary references should be added to the list of commentary references, not
the Code provisions of Section 1.4. Doing so can have the effect of making the
provisions of these standards a mandatory requirement.
08-R-021 Passed; 1 comment for new business
Affirm with Comment
Rochelle Jaffe
In the first sentence of the commentary, insert a comma after “necessary”.
In the second-to-last sentence, insert “requirements” after “preheat”.
08-R-023 Failed with 1 negative + 1 comment for new business
Affirm with Comment
David Pierson
I dont like the term edge cell or edge reinforcing bar. If we are referring to the end
of a shear wall, this would be the end cell of the wall and the vertical bar in the end
cell. It would be clearer if the anchorage had a figure in the code or commentary,
and if we simply required a cross wire in the bed joint crossing the end web at the
end of the wall (rather than the 3 inch return that is a bit confusing)
Negative
Mark McGinley
Note in Section 9.1.8.3.2 - You have removed the requirement for a 1.3 limit on the
actual strength of rebar if laid so that it is resisting flexure parallel to the bed joints.
You have justified the relaxation of this requirement for joint reinforcement but not
for rebar. If you can prove to me this can also be done for rebar, I will withdraw my
negative.
b.
MAIN 09 RESULTS From Public Comments
Daigle
Item
09-R-012
Affirm w/comment
4
Negative
5
Affirmative with Comment
Richard,Bennett
I believe the Figure number should be Figure CC-9.3-1. We
probably also need a reference to the Figure in the Commentary. I would suggest
a sentence after the second sentence of the first paragraph of part (b) of
commentary: The required configuration of the transverse reinforcement is shown
in Figure CC-9.3-1. The minimum length of the splice may also need a little more
work. For a #4 bar in the middle of an 8 inch CMU wall (fm=1500 psi), the required
lap length is 14 inches if you do not have transverse reinforcement. If you have
transverse reinforcement, then the 36db requires 18 inches. Granted putting in the
tranverse reinforcement in this short of a lap length may not occur very frequently,
but it could. Should we state that the lap length need not be required to be greater
than that by Equation 9-16?
Fernando,Fonseca #2 reinforcing bar is not used. Consider deleting the following
part of the sentence: or 12 in. (305 mm) whichever is greater. The 36db
requirement will always govern.
Susan,Frey Why was the ASD 8.1.7.7.1.2 not similarly revised? It seems that the
same editorial changes should be made there as well even if these occur in the
next cycle.
Arturo,Schultz
Corcorans comment seems quite appropriate and should be
addressed. Why specify the larger of 36db and 12 inches if the former will always
be larger than he latter?
Negative
Eric,Johnson
The ballot identified a valid comment from a subcommittee
voter. I am voting negative because no response to the comment was presented.
Jason,Thompson Item 09-R-012 Negative Delete the parenthetical
PERPENDICULAR, adding the term transverse at the beginning of the
requirement clarifies the intent. Delete this term from the commentary figure as
well. Delete the 12 inch minimum requirement. This is not applicable to confined
lap splices, only unconfined lap splices. The failure mode can change when lap
splices are confined hence the 36db limit. The proposed commentary figure is
potentially misleading as it shows the edge or corner of a wall. The confining
reinforcement needs to be developed on both sides of the splice. It is possible to
do this at a corner by turning the transverse bar around the corner, but as shown
the figure seems to imply that the transverse bar simply stops an inch or two away
from the splice on the right hand side.
Charles,Tucker
Corcoran’s comment is correct so why include the minimum
12 requirement? To resolve this negative, remove the last phrase or 12 in.
(305mm), whichever is greater. There is also an extra period in the proposed last
sentence following the subscript b.
Rochelle Jaffe:
1.
In the first sentence, either delete “within” or delete “or less” – these are
redundant.
2.
The phrase “reduced by” implies subtraction rather than multiplication.
Need to keep the “multiplied by”.
3.
In the figure, the as-drawn transverse reinforcement is obviously not fully
developed on each side of the lapped bars because the lapped bars are shown at
the end of the wall. Either show a hook on the transverse bars or revise the figure
so that the lapped bars are in the middle of a wall.
David,Pierson
Below is how I would word this provision.
Where transverse (perpendicular) reinforcement consisting of No. 3 (M#10) or
larger bars is located in position along placed within the lap splice, and with at
least one transverse bar is within 8 in. (203 mm) or less from of each end of the
lap splice, the minimum length of lap splice for bars in tension or compression
determined by Equation 9-16 shall be permitted to be reduced by multiplying the a
confinement reinforcement factor, ξ. The clear space between the transverse bars
and the lapped lap spliced bars shall not exceed 1.5 in. (38 mm) and the
transverse bars shall be fully developed in grouted masonry. The reduced lap
splice length shall not be less than 36db. or 12 in. (305 mm), whichever is greater.
1I agree with Corcoran – the 12” limit is not needed.
2“…is within 8 in. or less from each end…” is not good code language. “…is
within 8 in. of each end…” is better
3I don’t like the phrase “lap spliced bars”. We are only talking about lap
splices here, so “spliced bars” is adequate.
4“in position along the lap splice” sounds strange. “located within the lap
splice” is better.
Comments
James,Farny
Since you have added [within] to [8 in. or less], you no longer need [or less]:
Where transverse (perpendicular) reinforcement consisting of No. 3 (M#10) or
larger bars is in position along the lap splice, and at least one transverse bar is
within 8 in. (203 mm) from each end of the lap splice,... Also, consider adding the
1.5 in. clear distance dimension between the lap-spliced bars in the figure.
Daniel,Zechmeister
I suggest to delete: in position along, and keep: placed within.
Daigle
Item
09-R-024
Affirm w/comment
2
Negative
2
Affirmative with Comment
David,McLean
Suggest improved wording as follows for Code 5.3.1.4 (e) Hooks at the end of a
lateral tie fabricated using a No. 5 bar and smaller shall consist of a 135-degree
bend plus a minimum 6 db extension, but not less than 2-1/2 in. (64 mm) at free
end of bar.
Rochelle,Jaffe
Delete the comma after “smaller”, or better yet, rewrite as “For a No. 5 lateral tie
bar or smaller, hooks at the ends shall consist of a 135 degree bend plus . . . “
Negative
Richard,Bennett
The way I read this is that 135 hooks are required. Why are 180 degree hooks not
allowed?
Jason,Thompson
Item 09-R-024 Negative This is confusing. Is the No. 5 bar limit referring to the tie
or the longitudinal reinforcement being tied? What does one do if they wanted to
use a No. 6 bar (or larger) bar? The 135 degree hook at the termination of the tie
isn’t necessary if the tie is overlapped on itself – for example a single tie
encompassed the longitudinal bars twice before terminating. What if one wanted to
use a circular tie?
Comments
Daniel,Zechmeister
This is already in the Code, section 6.1.5 (c), why repeat it?
Grant
Item
09-R-025
Affirm w/comment
2
Negative
0
Affirmative with Comment
Richard,Bennett
I would suggest changing the titles of the previous sections to indicate that the
previous sections are for bars. For example, Section 8.1.7.7.1 Lap splices perhaps
should be changed to 8.1.7.7.1 Lap splices of bars in tension and compression
8.1.7.7.2 Welded splices changed to 8.1.7.7.2 Welded splices of bars in tension
and compression 8.1.7.7.3 Mechanical splices changed to 8.1.7.7.3 Mechanical
splices of bars in tension and compression 8.1.7.7.4 End-bearing splices changed
to 8.1.7.7.4 End-bearing splices of bars in compression (as a side note, are endbearing splices used in masonry?). This changing of titles may become a moot
point if these provisions are moved to Chapter 6.
Rochelle,Jaffe
In the last sentence of the Commentary, change “is” to “are”.
Porter
Item
09-R-034.1
Affirm w/comment
2
Negative
3
Affirmative with Comment
David,Pierson
Since all cross wires are cross wires - they are either diagonal or perpendicular - I
would phrase it thusly: ...welded to perpendicular or diagonal cross wires.
Scott,Walkowicz
Editorially insert mortar bed joint between between wires in the and face shells
because it seems the intent is to describe the joint reinforcement placement and it
is impossible to place it in the face shells - it must go in the mortar in the bed
joint....
Negative
W.,McGinley
Joint Reinforcement can also be used as principal flexural reinforcement for
inplane and out-ofplane bending. The commentary needs to include this in its
definition.
Jason,Thompson
Item 09-R-034.1 Negative Joint reinforcement is not required to have cross wires –
consider single wire joint reinforcement used in veneers. By citing face shells and
crack control, the commentary implies that joint reinforcement is only used with
hollow concrete masonry units whereas is can be used with solid units, clay
masonry, or glass block.
Rochelle,Jaffe
The proposed definition is inaccurate for several reasons: it omits some types of
joint reinforcement that are permitted by MSJC, such as tab type; and it excludes
single wire joint reinforcement which is required for veneer.
The commentary to the proposed definition is also inaccurate because it limits joint
reinforcement wires to being placed on face shells (of hollow units), but wires can
also be placed in bed joints on solid units.
Comments
Daniel,Zechmeister
Consider adding the following to the last sentence of the Commentary...vertical
reinforcement, insulation or grout.
Porter
Item
09-R-034.2
Affirm w/comment
0
Negative
6
Negative
Richard,Bennett
I support the concept of moving the development and splice requirements to
Chapter 6. This item needs to be coordinated with 09-R-025. That ballot item adds
additional information on splicing of wires in tension. There is also an
inconsistency between Code and Commentary. The Code requires a minimum of
9 inches development length for epoxy coated wire. The commentary says The 50
percent increase in development length does not apply to the 6 in. (152 mm)
minimum. Spec Article 3.4 B.10.b requires a minimum 6-in. (152-mm) lap splices
for joint reinforcement. Is there a reason that the minimum 6 inches is not included
in the Code? The commentary to Section 6.1.7.1 refers to previous versions of the
Code. The chances of us remembering to update this in the 2016 version are
rather slim. I would suggest saying: Prior to 2013, the Code required the
development of wires to be .... An editorial comment is that in 6.1.8, the b of db
should be a subscript.
David,McLean
I voted negative on this item for 2 reasons: (1) in the proposed Code 6.1.8 Lap
splice of wires, bars are included in the requirements. I believe this is an error. (2)
In the proposed
Code 6.1.8, shouldnt the lap splice for wires also include the minimum of 6 in. (in
addition to 48 db) as required by Code 6.1.7? What if the wires are epoxy coated?
David,Pierson
The title of 6.1.8 is -Lap Splices of Wires -. Yet the provision references reinforcing
bars and wires. As such it could be used to pre-empt the reduced splice lengths of
9.3.3.4(b), which could be less than 48db. Shouldnt 6.1.8 just be provisions for lap
splices of wires?
Jason,Thompson
Item 09-R-034.2 Negative The proposed Section 6.1.8 references reinforcing bars.
These provisions do not apply to bars. The design, construction, and prescriptive
requirements phrase adds little. Just simplify to: The minimum lap splice for wire
shall not be less than 48db. I’m not sure I understand the commentary statement
that the 50% increase on lap length does not apply to the 6 inch minimum when
the proposed code provision states 9 inches for epoxy wire. AAC masonry cannot
accommodate bed joint reinforcement, but by moving these requirements to
Chapter 6 implies that it can. Suggest adding new commentary language to clarify
this or revising accordingly.
Charles,Tucker
1) At the end of Section 6.1.8 the b in 48db should be a subscript. 2) There is a
discrepancy between the Code and Commentary for Section 6.1.7. The
Commentary says, The 50 percent increase in development length does not apply
to the 6 in. (152 mm) minimum. yet the Code shows the minimum increased by 50
percent to 9 in. To resolve this negative rectifythis discrepancy.
Rochelle,Jaffe
1. Although the title of proposed Section 6.1.8 is “Lap splices of wires”, the text
also refers to bars.
2. Proposed Section 6.1.8 discusses lap splices “required by construction”, but the
Code does not address requirements for wires “required by construction”. The
Code addresses design. Do you mean for restraint of volume change stresses?
3. Because proposed Section 6.1.8 includes bars as well as wires, it is in direct
conflict with Sections 8.1.7.7.1.1, 9.3.3.4, and 11.3.3.4.
4. Proposed Section 6.1.8 is in conflict with the Specification, because it requires
wires to always be lapped 48db, but the Specification permits 6 inch laps.
5. Suggest rewriting Section 6.1.8 as:
6.1.8 Lap splices of wires — Lap splices for wirerequired by design in accordance
with this Code shall be a minimum of 48db. Lap splices for wire required solely to
resist volume change stresses shall be permitted to be 6 inches.
6. Delete the proposed commentary to Section 6.1.8. Other than the first sentence,
which provides no additional information, the remainder belongs in the
Specification or Specification Commentary (Article 3.4 C.1).
Comments
James,Farny
In 6.1.7 commentary, first paragraph, last sentence, it says [The 50 percent
increase in development length does not apply to the 6 in. (152 mm) minimum.]. I
would like clarification on that because section 6.1.7 of the code says to use no
less than 9 in. for epoxy-coated bars (a 50% increase over uncoated bars). Should
the statement say that the 50% increase does not apply to the 6 in. or 9 in. length,
respectively (uncoated, coated)? Seems like something is missing from statement
as written.
Daniel,Zechmeister
I believe the proposed section 6.1.8 48db is in conflcit with the 6 inch minimum in
the Specification. For a 9 gage wire, I believe, you will get 7.1 inches.
Curtis
Item
09-R-043
Passed-evaluate comments as new business
Affirm w/comment
Negative
2
2 were withdrawn
Affirmative with Comment
Richard,Bennett
Commentary 8.1.7.3 reads: The 50 percent increase in development length does
not apply to the 12 in. (305 mm) minimum. I would change to: The 50 percent
increase in development length required for epoxy-coated bars does not apply to
the 12 in. (305 mm) minimum. Or better yet, just move all of the commentary from
9.3.3.3 to 8.1.7.3.
Arturo,Schultz
In Code commentary section 8.1.7.7.1 bond stress failure should be replaced with
bond failure. This should be an editorial change
Daigle
Item
09-R-062
Affirm w/comment
4
Affirmative with Comment
Richard,Bennett
Negative
6
Please show grout in the interior of the left column in Figure CC-5.3-1. We had an
almost endless debate in Flexural, Axial, and Shear whether a hollow column was
permitted, and if ties would be required on the interior of the bars if it was hollow.
To avoid that debate, just show a solid column.
Robert,Chittenden
The sketches are missing a hook. It appears that the hoop has a hook at one end
of the hoop bar and a straight end at the other end of the hoop bar - show both
ends terminating with a hook.
David,Pierson
While I understand Jacksons negative, this provision is actually found in the code
(which binds a designer but not a contractor). The tolerances that he seeks
probably ought to be part of the specification (which binds a contractor if
incorporated by reference into the construction documents). Also, the word -fathershould be -farther-.
Rochelle,Jaffe
In Figure CC-5.3-2, do not capitalize Clay.
In Figure CC-5.3-1, suggest adding a note that CMU shells and webs need to be
notched to accommodate the tie and its embedment in mortar or grout.
“and/or” is an imprecise term that should be avoided in a Code. Suggest rewriting
as “Lateral ties shall be placed embedded in either a mortar joint and/or in grout.”
Jaffe_Rochelle_C_09-R-062.doc
Negative
John,Chrysler
I agree with the Jackson Negative. I have seen this identical condition (very slight
gap randomly between bars) become a big and unnecessary field issue.
Keith,Itzler
I agree with the negative voter. The requirements for direct contact should be
vetted before rushing into the Code.
Eric,Johnson
I agree with the negative voter from Subcommittee. This item warrants further
consideration.
John,Tawresey
This is an unnecessary restriction for masonry. It is common in masonry
construction for column ties not in to be in direct contact with column longitudinal
reinforcement. I know of no test data supporting the requirement. Moreover,
calculations show that ties without direct contact prevent longitudinal bar bucking.
This comment appears to be from a concrete person not a masonry person.
Jason,Thompson
Item 09-R-062 Negative The and/or isn’t the best code language. I also agree with
the subcommittee negative that the direct contact reference is likely to be
misconstrued in the field. Admittedly, I never interpreted the reference to ties in
mortar joints the same way as the public commenter does, which seems to imply
that the entire tie could be placed only on the face shell perimeter of the column –
which I would agree it incorrect and effectively nullifies the confinement provided
by the ties. The way I have interpreted this statement is reflect in the proposed
Commentary Figure CC-5.3-1. Here the column may be constructed using units
having reduced web heights (bond beam units), in which case the tie is located at
some position within the height of course of units. Alternatively, the units can be all
full height and the tie located at the top of the course – i.e., the mortar joint. In this
case, portions of the tie are embedded in grout and portions are potentially
embedded in mortar where the tie crosses a web or face shell. In this latter case,
the diameter of the tie is limited based on the mortar joint thickness.
Scott,Walkowicz
I think this is a very important item to address, for us and for ACI 318. That being
said, I didnt expect direct contact to be required but rather a small separation with
some minor tolerance. Is there research that shows only direct contact works? Ill
guarantee you that most longitudinal bar/tie bar intersections are not in perfect
contact in most parts of the country and I agree with the subcommittee negative on
the impracticality of requiring perfect contact at every long bar/tie bar interface.
Was this coordinated with FAS and Seismic? When I asked respected researchers
who are members of our committee the answers varied but seemed to indicate
direct contact is desired by those who may be influenced by seismic concern
where as some seismic minded persons and others who may focus less on
seismic research seemed to think that some separation would be okay because
the grout or mortar between the bar and the tie bar would be in compression and
that the desired confinement would remain. Ill withdraw my negative if there is
research that shows direct contact is the only effective way to confine column
longitudinal bars. Or maybe there needs to be a two part requirement based on
SDC or something like that, if that approach is supported by research. Thanks and
I hope youll keep working on this!
Comments
James,Farny
In 5.3.1.4 (c), typo in first sentence where provide should be provided: ...bar shall
have lateral support provided by the corner of a lateral tie...
Daniel,Zechmeister
I agree with the negative voter. The Specification allows a +/- tolerance for the
longitudinal bars based on the effective depth, d. Based on these tolerances every
tie in a column would be a different size and have to be field measured after the
longitudinal bars are placed. Also the matter is further complicated at the lap
splices of longitudinal bars.
Whitlock
Item
09-R-109
Affirm w/comment
1
Negative
14
Affirmative with Comment
Susan,Frey
I agree that the terminolgy is a bit confusing. I do see headed anchor studs used in
masonry construction. The intent is going in the right direction -- to cover both
hooks and headed studs, but a clarifying sketch and industry standard terminology
is in order for future consideration.
Negative
Jennifer,Bean Popehn
I agree with Diagles and McLeans negative comments.
Richard,Bennett
The subcommittee negative by Daigle is persuasive.
Robert,Chittenden
Need to define what a headed deformed bar is and set forth the head parameters.
The head must have sufficient strength AND stiffness to function similar to a bolt
head or stud head.
John,Chrysler
I agree with the Subcommittee negative voters.
Fernando,Fonseca
How is a headed deformed bar manufactured? Will the manufacturing process
change the material properties around the head so that the behavior of a headed
deformed bar is different from the other devices mentioned in 8.1.7.1. I am sure
how to calculate the tension or compression in the reinforcement that shall be
developed on each side of a headed deformed bar. If such a calculation requires
an equation to compute the development length of a headed deformed bar, where
can we find such an equation?
Keith,Itzler
I agree with the negative voter. Terminology must be correct before changing the
Code.
Eric,Johnson
I agree with the negative subcommittee voters.
W.,McGinley
I agree with McLean. They we do not need to introduce new headed bars into the
code without research.
David,McLean
I vote negative on this item primarily because I think the use of headed bars in
masonry will introduce numerous behavioral issues not currently covered by the
MSJC provisions. Introducing this terminology in this one location is not
appropriate.
David,Pierson
Unless - Headed Deformed Bar- is defined I would not want this in the code.
Jason,Thompson
Item 09-R-109 Negative Too many unresolved subcommittee negatives to warrant
balloting this item. More technical fodder to consider: The MSJC contains
provisions for development, hooks, and mechanical coupling – but nothing on
headed bars. How does one use the MSJC provisions to detail development
length with a headed bar? Is there a minimum size of head? Depending upon the
location/orientation, the ability to adequately place and consolidate grout could
become an issue.
Charles,Tucker
The subcommittee negative voters have valid points that should be addressed.
The terminology should be consistent with design practice. To resolve this
negative address the negatives from the subcommittee.
Scott,Walkowicz
First, we need to use the proper terms for each and every item that may be used
in masonry and will be governed by our code - so lets determine if headed
deformed bar is correct (it seems not) or if others like Headed Anchor Stud and
Deformed Anchor Stud are correct then, second, lets properly evaluate whether
each can be used in compression development and apply exclusions
appropriately.
Rochelle,Jaffe
A “headed deformed bar” is not defined by MSJC or by ASTM. MSJC does not
have design provisions for development of a “headed deformed bar”. Do not make
the proposed change.
Comments
Daniel,Zechmeister
I agree with the negative voters, what is a headed deformed bar?
McLean
Item
09-R-139
Affirm w/comment
2
Negative
1
Affirmative with Comment
Richard,Bennett
The requirement that the actual yield strength not be greater than 1.3 times the
specified yield strength does not apply to all bars. It does not apply to
reinforcement used for in-plane shear or flexural tension parallel to the bed joints.
This should be clarified in the checklist.
Jason,Thompson
Item 09-R-139 Affirmative with Comment Not related to this proposed change
directly…more to the 1.3 limit and a long-standing personal rant but not
EVERYTHING is seismically-driven or in need of high levels of ductility. I’m OK
with A615 steel for my structurally isolated, non-participating partition walls. And if
this comment doesn’t get me banded from the Seismic Subcommittee, I have
others.
Negative
Rochelle,Jaffe
I agree with the concept of adding an item to the Mandatory Requirements
Checklist, but the item as written fails to include Chapter 11, which has the same
limitation on yield strength. Suggest rewriting as:
“When deformed reinforcing bars are required by strength design (in accordance
with Code Chapter 9 or Chapter 11), specify that the actual yield strength must not
exceed the specified yield strength multiplied by 1.3.”
Committee discussed item and Jaffe negative. Motion to find Jaffe’s
negative persuasive. Vote 7-0-0. Motion passes.
Motion to propose new item for Main 11: “When deformed reinforcing bars
are required by strength design in accordance with Code Chapter 9 or
Chapter 11, specify that the actual yield strength must not exceed the
specified yield strength multiplied by 1.3.” Vote 7-0-0. Motion passes. Item
will be carried to Andy as Main 11-R-139.
Corcoran
Passed-evaluate comments as new business
Item
09-R-145
Affirm w/comment
2
Negative
0
Affirmative with Comment
Susan,Frey
The word bar is a bit obsolete. Our master specifications are modifying this
terminology at this time to reflect ACI and ASTM terminology. Note the
reinforcement seems to be the most common usage in many of those documents.
Reinforcing steel is the next most commonly used and reinforcement bar is
phasing out. I would also suggest that a future global change be made to all
references in the document and would cover bars and wires unless a specific
distinction need be made. My suggestion would be reinforcement.
Scott,Walkowicz
I thought our standard was to use reinforcement but this seems to work properly
here....
Corcoran
Item
09-R-190
Affirm w/comment
3
Negative
1
Affirmative with Comment
John,Chrysler
The first item of this ballot (heading) is also ballotted on 09-Q-117. The proposed
Commentary addition is written as if it is directed to a designer rather than field
personnel.
Susan,Frey
See comment for 09-R-145.
Rochelle,Jaffe
Chapter 11, Section 11.1.8.6, also limits the actual yield strength of bar
reinforcement. Suggest revising the Commentary to Article 2.4A to reflect this fact.
Also suggest including the term “strength design”.
Negative
Keith,Itzler
I agree with the negative voters. Terminology should be correct before changing
the Code.
Motion to find Negative by Itzler non-germane. Vote 7-0-0. Motion passes. Will
carry to Main committee meeting this evening to uphold determination as nongermane. Subsequently, Itzler withdrew his negative.
b.
2013 Cycle Summary to date of Main Ballots
Lead: Porter
05-R-001
Failed due to negatives
06-R-001A Passed
06-R-001B Had persuasive negatives
Completed - Became Item 07-R-023.
Lead McGinley:
05-R-002
Failed due to negatives
06-R-002
Negatives found non-persuasive
Completed - Item passed.
Lead: Curtis
SC-R-003 balloted at subcommittee.
Withheld from Main
Carryover item for next cycle.
Lead: Curtis
R-004 balloted at subcommittee. Withheld from Main
Carryover item for next cycle.
Lead: Jackson
R-005 balloted at SC and Main but was withdrawn because should have been CR
item.
Completed - item failed.
Lead: McGinley
R-006 discussed at subcommittee. Not balloted.
Carryover item for next cycle.
Lead: Korany
06-R-007
Failed due to negatives. Negatives found persuasive.
Completed - item failed.
Lead: Whitlock
R-008 discussed at subcommittee. Not balloted.
Carryover item for next cycle.
Lead: Jackson
06-R-009
Failed due to negatives. Negatives were withdrawn.
Completed - Item passed.
Lead: Porter
R-010 discussed at subcommittee. Not balloted.
Carryover item for next cycle.
Lead: Corcoran/McLean
06-R-011 passed.
Completed - Item passed.
Lead: Daigle
08-R-012 failed due to negatives
Carryover item for next cycle.
Lead: Corcoran
07-R-013 passed.
Completed - Item passed.
Lead: Corcoran
07-R-014 passed.
Completed - Item passed.
Lead: McGinley
07-R-015 failed due to negative.
08-R-015 passed.
Completed - Item passed.
Lead: McLean
07-R-016 passed.
Completed - Item passed.
Lead: Daigle
07-R-018 passed.
Completed - Item passed.
Lead: Grant
07-R-019 failed due to negative.
08-R-019 failed due to negative.
Carryover item for next cycle.
Lead: McGinley
07-R-020 failed due to negatives. Negative found persuasive.
Completed - item failed.
Lead: Jackson
07-R-021 failed due to negative.
08-R-021 passed.
Completed - Item passed.
Lead: Whitlock
07-R-022 passed.
Completed - Item passed.
Lead: Porter
Carryover from R-001
07-R-023 failed due to negatives.
08-R-023 failed due to negative.
Carryover item for next cycle.
Lead: Grant
08-R-024 passed.
Completed - Item passed.
Lead: Curtis
07-R-025 passed.
Completed - Item passed.
Lead: Jackson
07-R-026 passed.
Completed - Item passed.
Lead: Grant
07-R-027 failed due to negative. Negative was withdrawn.
Completed - Item passed.
6.
New Business
a.
Responses to Ballot 09
Lead: Daigle
09-R-012 failed due to negatives.
Action:
The Committee appreciates your comment and thanks you for submitting it for
consideration. Changes consistent with the comment were proposed on Main
Committee ballot 09-R-012. Persuasive negatives were received that could not be
resolved. The topic will be carried over to the next cycle.
Vote on proposed change 7-0-0. Change approved.
Lead: Daigle
09-R-024 failed due to negatives.
Action:
The Committee appreciates your comment and thanks you for submitting it for
consideration. Changes consistent with the comment were proposed on Main
Committee ballot 09-R-024. Persuasive negatives were received that could not be
resolved. The topic will be carried over to the next cycle.
Vote on proposed change 7-0-0. Change approved.
Lead: Grant
09-R-025 Passed –Item completed.
Action: Comments to be addressed in next cycle.
The Committee appreciates your comment and thanks you for submitting it for
consideration. Changes consistent with the comment were proposed and
approved on Main Committee ballot 09-R-025.
Motion to update the response to reflect successful outcome of ballot.
Lead: Porter
09-R-034.1 failed due to negatives.
Action: To be addressed in next cycle.
The Committee appreciates your comment and thanks you for submitting it for
consideration. Changes consistent with the comment were proposed on two Main
Committee ballots 09-R-034.1 and 09-R-34.2. Persuasive negatives were
received that could not be resolved. The topics will be carried over to the next
cycle.
Vote on proposed change 7-0-0. Change approved.
Lead: Porter
09-R-034.2 failed due to negatives.
Action: To be addressed in next cycle. See 09-R034.1
Vote on proposed change 7-0-0. Change approved.
Lead: Curtis
09-R-043 Passed –Item completed.
Action: Comments to be addressed in next cycle.
The Committee appreciates your comment and thanks you for submitting it for
consideration. Changes consistent with the comment were proposed and
approved on Main Committee ballot 09-R-043.
Vote on proposed change 7-0-0. Change approved.
Lead: Daigle
09-R-062 failed due to negatives.
Action:
The Committee appreciates your comment and thanks you for submitting it for
consideration. Changes consistent with the comment were proposed on Main
Committee ballot 09-R-062. Persuasive negatives were received that could not be
resolved. The topic will be carried over to the next cycle.
Vote on proposed change 7-0-0. Change approved.
Lead: Whitlock
09-R-109 failed due to negatives.
Action:
The Committee appreciates your comment and thanks you for submitting it for
consideration. The subcommittee considered the comment and could not reach a
consensus. The topic will be considered in the next cycle. Changes consistent
with the comment were proposed on Main Committee ballot 09-R-109. Persuasive
negatives were received that could not be resolved. The topic will be carried over
to the next cycle.
Vote on proposed change 7-0-0. Change approved.
Lead: McLean
09-R-139 failed due to negative.
Action: Revise and reballot for Main 011
The Committee appreciates your comment and thanks you for submitting it for
consideration.
However, we respectfully disagree as Commentary Section 9.1.8.3.1 states that
the requirement that the actual yield strength shall not exceed 1.3 multiplied by the
specified yield strength is to minimize the over-strength unintentionally
incorporated into design. This criterion is a specific requirement of ASTM A706.
While A615 does not have this requirement, many heats of A615 will meet the
criterion. So while A706 reinforcement will always meet the requirement, A615
reinforcement may also meet the requirement. It would be the responsibility of the
contractor to demonstrate compliance with the requirement if A615 reinforcement
is being used.
On the basis of the above discussion, the Committee is proposing only to add an
item to the Specification Checklist on Main Committee ballot 09 11-R-139.
Vote on proposed change 7-0-0. Change approved.
Lead: Corcoran
09-R-145 Passed –Item completed.
Action: Comments to be addressed in next cycle.
The Committee appreciates your comment and thanks you for submitting it for
consideration. Changes consistent with the comment were proposed and
approved on Main Committee ballot 09-R-145.
Vote on proposed change 7-0-0. Change approved.
Lead: Corcoran
09-R-190 failed due to negatives.
Action: At Main Committee, Itzler withdrew his negative and the item passed.
The Committee appreciates your comment and thanks you for submitting it for
consideration. Changes consistent with the comment were proposed and
approved on Main Committee ballot 09-R-190
b.
Review all PC responses.
Update responses affected by negatives and edits.
1. Subsequent to the subcommittee meeting, it was noted at Main Committeee
that the response to PC 44 was incorrect. While 09-R-044 was balloted at
subcommittee, there were concerns and it was not presented to Main
Committee and will carry over the next cycle.
2. Subsequent to the subcommittee meeting, it was noted at Main Committeee
that the response to PC 45 was incorrect. While 09-R-045 was balloted at
subcommittee, there were concerns and it was not presented to Main
Committee and will carry over the next cycle.
c.
7.
New items
Additional Items to Rollover to 2016 Cycle
a.
Staggered bond beams.
i.
See Diane Throop email of 2-13-12 ii.
ii.
Biggs negative on 05-Q-006
a.
Asks for evidence that non-contact lap splices will not cause
cracking. However, non-contact lap splices are already allowed by the
Code in Chapters 2 and 3, and in the Specification; we are not introducing
anything new. Question: Are multiple non-contact splices appropriate or
desirable?
b.
Addresses only one approach to detailing the stepped bond beam
using specific values. We are not restricting bond beams to a single layer of
reinforcement per course, nor are we dictating the spacing between bars.
Those are details that must be designed by the A/E to meet the existing
code requirements. We are just providing a generic description of what is
involved; we are not providing design requirements that are included
elsewhere in the Code/Specification. Question: Can stepped bond beams
be detailed and constructed adequately?
b.
Comments from 05-R-001. Mark McGinley.
c.
See carryover items from R&C Item 5a.
d.
Use of joint reinforcement. Responses to comments from negatives on Main item
06-R-001B. Was this resolved by Main 07 and 08??
e.
From Paul Curtis:
I think this may be a problem because people consider the “length” as the distance
of the anchor in its bent state. I have attached our RFQ file for the intersecting wall
anchor.
The code reads: Minimum size: 1/4” x 1 1/2” x 28” including 2” long 90-degree
bend at each end to form U or Z shape.
I interpreted the “including” being in addition to the 28” length.
A possible fix:
Minimum size: 1/4” x 1 1/2” x 24” long center to center of 2” long 90-degree
bends at each end to form U or Z shape.
I have had people order these in 28” lengths. I actually changed our catalog in
2007 when I noticed the 28” in the code!
I now intend to switch this back to 24” for the length.
Diane Throop was at the presentation I gave and I did mention this to her and told
her I would send you an email. I have copied her in on this email.
f.
g.
h.
i.
The use of high strength bars A722 (like prestress) in reinforced masonry.
Using non-metallic reinforcement.
Post-installed anchors.
Veneer anchors and ties – design and corrosion protection. Coordinate with
VG&E.