2013 MSJC Committee Responses to the 2013 MSJC TAC Comments on
Building Code Requirements and Specification for Masonry Structures & Commentaries
No.
5
Section
or
Article
#
C or S
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
(P,S,E,
L)
P
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
General: A TAC comment from the
2011 cycle (TAC Comment 7)
suggested to the Committee that
Code chapters should be organized
in a logical and consistent manner so
that a user does not need to ‘relearn’
where provisions are located when
jumping between (say) ASD and SD.
The recently updated Committee
response to this previous TAC
comment is that work on this is
ongoing with the hopes of finishing
this effort in the next cycle. Taken
by itself, this presents little problem,
however, when coupled with the
major reorganization of the Code
introduced in this cycle a significant
issue does arise. Effectively the
Committee is asking users to learn a
new Code in 2013, with explicit
plans to do so again in the next
cycle. While never pleasant, most
recognize the need for such
reorganization every couple decades
to maintain a user-friendly
document. By the Committee’s own
acknowledgement, however, this
reorganization is only partially
complete. To the extent possible, the
committee is requested to address
this issue.
GR
The Committee agrees that further
adjustments could be made for greater
consistency between chapters such as
between ASD and SD or SD and
AAC chapters. The Committee also
agrees that certain provisions could be
moved from design chapters in Part 2
into Part 1. The Committee has
proposed changes in an attempt to
address the commenter’s intent.
Those changes were balloted as part
of Main Ballot 2013-07-G-021.
Persuasive negatives were found. The
committee will continue to work on
this. If possible the comments from
Bennett and Jaffe will be incorporated
and re-balloted at subcommittee and
then at Main 08.
Y
2016 Committee
Response
Update from Chair: Proposed changes
received persuasive negatives at
subcommittee ballot prior to Main 08.
No reballot on Main 08.
1
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
6
18
19
Classifi
cation
S
1.1
1.1
C-1
C-1
50
5565
P
S
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
As examples of needed
reorganization, the committee should
group common design provisions
together rather than in separate
locations (e.g., beams). Another
need is to organize provisions
similarly within chapters covering
different engineering design methods
(e.g., ASD and SD provisions).
A comment submitted during the last
cycle asked that shear friction
provisions be considered. This was
not completed in this cycle, which is
unfortunate. The response indicates
that this was worked on, but not
completed. If possible, consider
working on this now before the
Public Comment period. It would be
nice to get it done.
FAS
The subcommittee has had
discussions on this item but due to
time constraints and other higher
priority items, no consensus at the
subcommittee level has been reached.
Y
2016 Committee
Response
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the FAS Subcommittee
for consideration, ahead of this item
and as such the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Move first paragraph on the
commentary side down to parallel
section 1.1.2 of the code side. This
paragraph reads like commentary to
1.1.2.
GR
Seems an odd place for structural
integrity commentary. No code has
been presented yet. Consider
creating nominal provisions for
integrity and placing in the code.
Otherwise, find a more appropriate
location.
GR
To be balloted on Main 08.
Y
Update from Chair: The
subcommittee was unable to prepare a
ballot for Main 08. Item will continue
as new business.
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
Y
2
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
21
1.2.2
C-2
12
S
Regarding the list of code-required
drawing items shown on the project
drawings, I know that the quality
assurance program is typically laid
out within the project specifications,
but would it be beneficial to list the
Level (A, B, or C) of the required
quality assurance program on the
drawings as well?
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
27
1.2.1
C-2
50
S
The following Commentary sentence
is unrelated to the discussion. Delete
or relocate.
“A Commentary on TMS 602/ACI
530.1/ASCE 6 follows the
Specification.”
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
29
Comme
ntary –
1.2.2
C-2
60
S
Change last sentence to read “While
load transfer usually involves nonstructural masonry…frames, to
structural and non-structural
masonry should also…”
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
32
Fig CC1.2-1
C-3
66
S
For the figure on veneer wythe wall
anchorage details, not to be too selfpromoting of masonry, but should
we also show a detail for veneer over
masonry backup? This could help
drive home the idea that
accommodation for differential
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
Y
3
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
movement also needs to occur
between masonry elements, and not
just between masonry/steel or
masonry/concrete.
40
2.1
50
2.2
C-7
6
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
S
For the list of notations, has any
consideration ever been given to
listing the code section where the
variable is used, similar to the format
of the notation section in ACI 318?
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
P
Delete the following definitions from
the Code and Spec outright:
- Column
- Foundation pier
- Pier
- Wall
And any other configurationdependent definition. These
definitions do more harm than good.
According to the Committee
responses to TAC comment from the
past two cycles, the Committee
recognizes the flaws in these
definitions and has been attempting
to fix them for years. Don’t fix
them, delete them. Because of the
absolute nature of these definitions
they override engineering judgment
and are therefore unsafe. I have lost
count of how many times I’ve
spoken with engineers that
intentionally make their columns a
little longer in one direction so they
do not need to comply with the
GR
The committee agrees that definitions
and the use of geometric requirements
in the definitions can be confusing
and restrictive. The Committee,
however, feels that acceptable
definitions provide value to the user
and has crafted revised definitions for
ballot. New definitions were balloted
at subcommittee and an item
addressing several items except for
columns and piers was balloted as part
of Main Ballot 2013-07. (Item 07-G005a) Persuasive negatives were
found .Committee intends to continue
work on this item.
Y
4
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
prescriptive column detailing
requirements.
51
Code –
2.2
C-14
5
S
Delete “structural” before “support”.
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
53
Code –
2.2
C-14
35
S
Add “structurally” before attached in
definition for Backing.
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
61
2.2
C-16
11
and
15
P
The definitions and terms for
‘cavity’ and ‘collar’ and not used
consistently throughout the Code and
Spec. The commentary
differentiates between these two
spaces by their size. The
composite/non-composite provisions
are slightly different yet. The veneer
provisions use ‘cavity’ when the
backing is non-masonry (as opposed
to two wythes as defined here). The
Spec requires (not permits) collar
joints to be filled with mortar when
of a certain size.
Be consistent throughout.
GR
Committee Response: The committee
agrees that the definitions and use of
the terms ‘cavity’ and ‘collar’ are at
times unclear and overlapping and
that greater clarity is required.
Changes to the definitions were
balloted as part of Main Ballot 201307. Persuasive negatives were found.
The committee will continue working
on this item. Also see response to
TAC Comment 51.
Y
62
2.2
C-16
17
P
Delete “isolated”. Every engineer
GR
The committee disagrees that the
Y
5
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
understands what a column is.
Isolated could have other meanings
as being not attached to anything
including top and bottom. Does the
code address attached columns
similar to boundary elements in RC
shear walls?
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
concept of isolated is understood by
every engineer and has concern that
deleting the term literally or
conceptually would lead to greater
confusion and possible misapplication of the Code than would
better definitions for the members. Of
particular concern is the case of
slender portions of masonry within
walls that may satisfy the geometric
portions of the definitions while not
being ‘isolated’ – research among
crafters of the Code indicates strong
consensus that masonry within a wall
be designed under the wall provisions
and only when the masonry is isolated
should it be designed under the
provisions for a column or a pier.
Changes were balloted to clarify the
members and their definitions as part
of Main Ballot 2013-07. Persuasive
negatives were found. The committee
will continue working on this item.
68
2.2
C-17
27
E
Revise as follows, waiting for all
losses to occur could be time
consuming:
Effective prestress — Stress
remaining in prestressing tendons
after all losses have occurred.
Pres
tress
Balloted on 07-P-006. Changes
proposed consistent with TAC
comment. Received one negative that
was found persuasive. After further
discussion, the committee
recommends maintaining the current
language and revisiting this item next
cycle when PTI finalizes their
definitions.
Y
71
Code –
2.2
C-19
10
P
Change definition for Load, Service
to “Load specified by the legally
adopted building code when the
structure is in service.” to match the
commentary in 8.1.1.
GR
The Committee agrees that the
definition of Service Load could be
improved. Changes were balloted at
subcommittee to revise the definition
for Service Load and to create
Y
6
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
definitions for Nominal Load and
Factored Load where a persuasive
negative was received. The item was
reworked and will be balloted as part
of Main Ballot 2013-08, if the
subcommittee ballot does not receive
persuasive negatives.
Chair Update: Persuasive negatives
received at subcommittee. No ballot
on Main 08.
Work will continue next cycle.
72
2.2
C-19
11
P
The Code uses the term ‘service
load’ both incorrectly and
inconsistently, sometimes in the
context of serviceability and
sometimes for nominal design loads.
The correct term here is ‘nominal
load’, which is the term used in
ASCE 7 and the building codes.
Search and replace correctly
throughout.
GR
The Committee agrees that the use of
Service Load is neither consistent nor
correct. Changes were balloted at
subcommittee to revise the use of
Service Load to Nominal Load where
appropriate and that ballot received a
persuasive negative. The item was
reworked and balloted as part of Main
Ballot 2013-08 if persuasive negatives
are not received at subcommittee. See
also item 71
Chair Update: Persuasive negatives
received at subcommittee. No ballot
on Main 08.
Y
83
Chapter
2
C-23
C112
13
4
E
Chapter 2 (definitions) states tensile
resistance of masonry exists.
Chapter 8 (ASD) states tensile
resistance of masonry is neglected.
Improve wording to be clear on
meaning.
FAS
Change Section 2.2 in Ballot 07-F018 consistent with the TAC
suggestion. A persuasive negative
received. Main ballot 08-F-018
addresses the negative and the TAC
comment. Negative was received.
Item does not move into the working
draft.
Y
Chapter
8
Work will continue next cycle.
89
3.1.2
C-26
5
S
The single largest performance
problem of contemporary masonry
CR
This item was balloted at Main 07-C033 and received several negative
Y
7
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
construction centers on masonry
veneers. Every investigation
following every natural disaster has
documented veneer failures; and in
virtually every one of these cases the
reports cite the lack of ties; the
improper use of ties; ties bent up and
not engaging the veneer; fasteners
installed into sheathing and not
studs; nails used as ties; and on and
on. The problem isn’t with the
provisions of the MSJC, but rather
their execution in the field. The
performance of masonry veneers
would significantly improve with a
very small amount of inspection.
Require the equivalent of a Level B
QA for the installation of masonry
veneers in Risk Category II, III, and
IV structures (possibly with an
exception for one- and two-family
construction).
95
Tables
3.1.2 &
3.1.3
C-28
to 30
1-40
S
I understand that it is the
responsibility of the designer to lay
out the expectations for the QA
program in the project documents.
However, the term “periodic” when
describing inspection frequency is
very open-ended. Should the code
provide some guidance, if not within
the code table then at least in the
commentary, on what the maximum
and minimum reasonable
expectations are for periodic
inspection? It could be defined as a
percentage of time onsite or review
of a certain percentage of elements.
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
votes with 1 found persuasive. The
guidance of inspection requirements
may extend beyond veneer which
requires additional consideration.
This item will be considered as new
business in the next cycle.
CR
The CR Subcommittee understands
the quagmire presented by the TAC
Comment.
The term “Periodic
Special Inspection” appeared in the
1973 Uniform Building Code (Section
305 (c)) and since then, the Uniform
Building Code and the International
Building Code has not quantified how
much periodic special inspection is
appropriate.
Y
Quantifying the appropriate amount of
period inspection is complex since it
will vary with the type of building and
building use, and other possible
factors. In addition, the designer may
require a level of inspection
confidence that may vary between
8
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
designers and also be contingent on
the contractor performing the
installation.
The CR Subcommittee will work on
this item in the next cycle with a goal
of quantifying how much is
appropriate for periodic inspection.
100
3.2.2.1
C-32
50
S
Add additional commentary
discussion to clarify that ‘embedded’
and ‘encased’ materials are two
different details and that these limits
do not apply to conduits, pipes, and
sleeves encased in masonry.
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
115
4.3.1
C-41
55
S
Delete the following commentary
statement. It is unclear what the user
is being instructed to do or what this
minimum net section would be used
for.
The designer may choose to use the
minimum thickness of the face shells
of the units as the minimum net
section.
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
116
4.3.1
C-41
59
S
Revise as follows. A few conditions
are missing.
For masonry of hollow, ungrouted
units laid in face shell mortar
bedding, the minimum crosssectional area in both…
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
117
4.3.1
C-41
66
S
Revise as follows:
GR
The Committee prioritized the
Y
9
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
Since the elastic properties of the
materials used in members designed
for composite action may differ,
equal strains produce different levels
of stresses in the components. To
compute these stresses, a convenient
transformed section…
120
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
4.3.4
C-43
4
S
Change the phrase “The bearing
area, Abr, for concentrated loads shall
not exceed the following:” to “The
bearing area, Abr, shall equal the
lesser of:”. Rationale is that Abr is
something that is calculated per the
code for analysis purposes, not
something that is specified by the
designer with “not to exceed” values.
F&S
121
Comme
ntary –
4.4
C-44
41
S
Does this first sentence refer to
veneer only or all masonry? If
veneer only, it should say so.
Otherwise, change “curtain” to
“infill.”
122
4.4
C-44
70
S
What does ‘embedded’ mean in this
context? I’ve never heard of beam
supporting masonry as being
‘embedded’.
The Committee balloted a change
consistent (but not exactly the
wording proposed in the TAC
comment) with the TAC Comment on
07-Q-16.
That ballot item received three
negatives that are unresolved. Item
will continue to be discussed next
cycle.
Y
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
10
No.
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
123
Section
or
Article
#
4.4
C-44
70
S
Revise as:
Beams or trusses supporting masonry
walls are essentially embedded, and
their deflections are required to
should be limited…
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
130
5.1.3.2
C-51
11
S
For clarity, revise as follows:
5.1.3.2 For walls not laid in running
bond, concentrated loads shall meet
the requirements of Section 5.1.3.1
and shall not be distributed across
head joints.
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
131
5.1.3
C-51
45
S
Revise as follows to clarify for
multi-story construction:
Arora (1988) suggests that a
concentrated load can be distributed
at a 2:1 slope, terminating at half the
wall height, where the wall height is
from the point of application of the
load to the foundation, not to be
taken larger than the story height.
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
137
5.2.1.1.
1
C-53
10
S
This section addresses the span
length of beams not built integrally
with the supports – what about
beams built integrally with supports?
FAS
Beams with fixed or partially fixed
supports can be conservatively dealt
with using the current provisions. A
ballot will be submitted to Main 08 to
add commentary.
Chair Update – This item received a
persuasive negative at Subcommittee
(ballot 08-F-43) so it didn’t get
balloted on Main 08. It will be
Y
2016 Committee
Response
11
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
FAS
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to FAS Subcommittee for
consideration, ahead of this
Secondary item and as such the
Committee will carry it forward to the
next cycle for consideration.
Y
FAS
The provisions mentioned in this TAC
comment do require significant
amounts of shear reinforcing, but
these provisions are based on the
research cited in commentary.
However it should be noted that the
shear reinforcing provisions only
apply to deep beams (Ones whose
depths dv are at least ½ the effective
span) and do not have sufficient shear
strength to resist the applied loads
with the masonry alone. This is not
very common.
Y
2016 Committee
Response
considered in the next cycle.
146
5.2.2
C-55
50
S
There was recently a paper in TMS
Journal related to deep beams by
Fonseca, Mathew, and Bennett. If
appropriate, reference here.
148
5.2.2.4
C-56
11
P
These provisions make masonry
beams unbuildable in many cases
where shear reinforcement is
required.
The last sentence of item (b) would
require two legged stirrups (or steel
on both faces) for all beams wider
than 8 in. This is very difficult to do
in masonry due to constructability
issue, congestion, etc. But item (c) is
even more ridiculous. It requires the
shear steel (admittedly only when it
is required) at a maximum spacing of
1/5 the total deep depth. That means,
for typical concrete masonry, with
cores every 8 inches on center, all
beams less than 40 inches deep
would require shear reinforcing (if it
is required) at a spacing of less than
our 8 inch module.
The Committee prioritized other
important Primary comments,
assigned to the FAS Subcommittee
for consideration, ahead of this item
and as such, the Committee will carry
it forward for future consideration.
Because these restrictions are so
excessive, it encourages designers to
use of deep beams without shear
reinforcement. That is counter to
what we want (that is, these
provisions encourage the designer to
make the beam deeper to give us
12
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
R&
C
The subcommittee agrees and balloted
changes via subcommittee ballot.
Item will be on Main 08 as item 08-R012. Negatives received. Item does
not move into the working draft.
Y
2016 Committee
Response
more masonry shear resistance, so
we don’t have to include shear steel
– it just makes no sense, and it
makes the beam “deeper”).
154
5.3.1.4
C-57
15
P
I think these provisions need a major
overhaul to be reasonable and
practical. They should not penalize a
design that adds strength and
ductility through the use of shear
reinforcement.
The requirements for an included
angle of not more than 135 degrees”
in this section has been causing
confusion:
(c) Lateral ties shall be arranged so
that every corner and alternate
longitudinal bar shall have lateral
support provided by the corner of a
lateral tie with an included angle of
not more than 135 degrees.
Item will be carried over into the next
cycle.
Please consider clarifying this
section to make it clear the
difference between the “included
angle” for ties and a standard hook.
That is, we want the longitudinal
bars to be supported by a tie, and that
tie is to be bent at that location. The
angle formed by that bend is not
permitted to exceed 135 degrees, so
that rigidity is provided at the
longitudinal bar. This requirement
does not pertain to the hooks at the
ends of the ties.
ACI 318 has similar requirements
13
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
R&
C
Several ballots in previous editions
have tried to align the ASD to SD and
AAC provisions relative to
reinforcement requirements. These
previous ballots were not successful,
with a roughly 50-50 split. From
previous cycles, it was determined
that:
Y
2016 Committee
Response
and language. The ACI commentary
includes a clarifying figure (righthand figure). Consider adding a
similar figure to our commentary.
159
6.1
C-61
15
P
I would like to see consistent
requirements for reinforcement in
ASD and SD (and prestress and
AAC as appropriate). This includes
type and size of reinforcement
permitted. Also whether bundled
bars are permitted or not.
As a practical matter, IBC over-rides
the MSJC provisions on this issue.
1.
There is no data saying that
the maximum size of bars for
ASD should be limited to #9
rebar. Larger bars have been
used successfully when
designed using ASD
procedures and there have
been no reported failures
associated with the larger
bars. The consensus was that
14
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
2.
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
the large bars are limited by
other factors and additional
limits are really not needed.
We tried to increase the
maximum bar size in
Strength Design but could
not find any data with larger
bar sizes that could be used
to confirm the strength
equations are accurate
enough for use with the
larger bars.
The current subcommittee
considered several options to
address this comment and was
again unable to come to
resolution on this issue in the
absence of any new research.
Consideration of this issue will
continue in the next Code
Development Cycle if new
research develops.
191
7.3.2.6.
1.1
C-80
30
P
Unlike Section 7.3.2.6.1.2, Section
7.3.2.6.1.1 does not limit this check
to in-plane seismic loads. I put
myself into a straightjacket each time
I attempt to comply with this
provision for out-of-plane wind
uplift, in-plane seismic overturning,
and the myriad of other loads and
load combinations for a single
element. The only functional
solution as written is to set Vn = 2.5
Vu and increase the thickness of the
wall and/or add unnecessary bond
beams.
Seis
mic
Although this comment refers to
several aspects of capacity design for
shear, its key request seems to be that
Code 7.3.2.6.1.1 be worded more like
Code 7.3.2.6.1.2. Because capacity
design is independent of loads, it
would be impossible to require
capacity design for in-plane seismic
shear only. It is useful to insert the
clarification that this is for design for
in-plane forces. The Seismic
Subcommittee has balloted a change
to address this issue. The next request
is for clarification of the axial load at
which the in-plane flexural and shear
Y
15
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
192
7.3.2.6.
1.1
C-80
30
P
Does the shear capacity check apply
to a line of resistance, or to each
element within a line of resistance?
Clarify.
Seis
mic
201
7.3.2.12
C-83
49
P
This is confusing to refer to two
different editions of ASCE 7 (two
different tables from two different
editions of ASCE 7) are referred to),
particularly when neither is listed in
the references at the end of the Code.
Revise for clarity. Same issue on
Pres
tress
2013 Committee Response
capacities are to be evaluated. In
previous discussions of this issue, the
Seismic Subcommittee has generally
favored using the axial force from
gravity loads alone in the governing
seismic loading combination (usually
the 0.9D from 0.9D + 1.0E). As an
item of new business, the Seismic
Subcommittee will consider
developing formal language for this.
As currently written, the shear
capacity check applies to each
element (“When designing reinforced
masonry shear walls . . . of the
element, . . .”). The Seismic
Subcommittee believes that the
present language is clear, and also
proper. If capacity design is applied
to a line of resistance, it would be
possible to have individual wall
segments in that line fail in shear.
This would clearly be undesirable.
The current requirement is intended to
ensure that the capacity of each wall
segment is governed by flexure. This
will then apply to the entire line as
well. As an item of new business, the
Seismic Subcommittee will consider
whether this requirement ought to be
applied to each line of shear walls
rather than each shear wall.
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
Y
Y
Balloted on 07-P-009. Changes
proposed were consistent with TAC
comment. One of three negatives was
found persuasive. The prestressed
subcommittee will continue to work
on this item next cycle to address
16
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
Line 60 of the commentary as well.
216
8.1.2
C-89
30
P
In other sections of the Code, the
user is required to use the loads from
ASCE 7 when not addressed by the
building code. Add a similar
requirement here as well.
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
comments and negatives received on
this item.
GR
The Committee agrees that the Code
should consistently refer the user to
ASCE 7, as in Section 9.1.2, rather
than to the building official as is done
in this section. Changes were balloted
as part of Main ballot 2013-07-G-019
to revise the language to be similar to
the language in the strength design
provisions of Chapter 9 with
modifications for allowable stress
design.
Y
This ballot item received a persuasive
negative and the subcommittee has reworked the item and has brought it to
Main 08 as item 08-G-019. Negatives
received. Item does not move into the
working draft.
Work will continue in the next cycle
227
8.1.5
C-91
32
S
Any technical reason that multiwythe construction is not applicable
to strength design?
FAS
The committee agreed - See Ballot
07-F-021. Persuasive negative.
Reballot 08-F-047. Negative received.
No change made.
Y
The item will be carried into the next
cycle.
232
Chapter
8
C-91
34
E
Words “other than AAC or glass
units” added at end of Section
8.1.5.1; ballot 05-F-014
FAS
Agreed – See Ballot 07-F-021.
Persuasive negative received.
Y
Reballoted on 08-F-47 consistent with
TAC suggestion –and provisions were
moved to Chapter 5 only (Chapter 8 is
ASD and does not apply to AAC)
Negative was received. Item does not
17
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
move into the working draft.
Item will be carried into the next
cycle for consideration.
237
Chapter
8
C-92
47
E
Word “metal ties” replaced with
“headers”; ballot 04-F-014
FAS
Agreed – See Ballot 07-F-021.
Persuasive negative received.
Reballotted on 08-F-047. Negative
received. No change made.
Y
Item will be carried into the next
cycle for consideration.
238
8.1.5.2
C-92
71
S
I find commentary statements such
as this perplexing. If the committee
does not recommend a specific
detail, why is it permitted?
GR
245
8.1.7.2
C-96
29
P
Equation 8-11 applies to the
development of wires in tension, but
there are no corresponding splicing
requirements for wire. Is welding
permitted, and if so, what are the
requirements? The 6 inch minimum
lap length cited in the Spec is
inadequate for all wire diameters –
being only half of what would be
required for 0.25 inch diameter wire.
R&
C
The embedment requirements for
ASD are largely those given in ACI
318. Similar requirements are
absent for SD (Chap 9) and AAC
(Chap 11). Why?
R&
C
247
8.1.7.4
C-97
14
P
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
The subcommittee agrees. See Ballot
07-R-019 and Ballot 08-R-019.
Negative was received. Item does not
move into the working draft.
Y
Y
Item will be carried into the next
cycle for consideration.
The committee agrees with the
comment. However, the committee
feels a comprehensive approach is
required for this and other related
items rather than to develop a
piecemeal approach. This will be
Y
18
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
273
8.3.1
C113
5
S
277
8.3.4.2.
1
C114
15,
P
8.3.4.4
C116
3
279
20
S
Comment
Add these reinforcement detailing
requirements to Chapter 6 so that
they apply to other design methods
as well.
Chapter 2 has a definition for
unreinforced masonry, but not for
reinforced masonry. Having a
definition for reinforced masonry
would save repeating charging
language such as this.
I would like to see the 0.25 factor in
code equations 8-21 and 8-22
changed to 0.33. This change can be
supported by the research and trial
designs used when recalibrating
other ASD allowable stresses during
the 2011 code cycle. Although this
change may have been delayed
during the 2013 cycle due to
concerns and/or coordination issues
with unreinforced and prestressed
masonry provisions, I believe it
could still be made this cycle if
limited to reinforced masonry only
(Section 8.3.4.2.1) which should not
adversely affect the unreinforced and
prestressed code provisions.
Relocated this section to Chapter 7
for seismic-specific requirements.
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
taken up as a new item of business in
the next cycle.
GR
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the General Requirements
Subcommittee for consideration ahead
of this Secondary item and
accordingly, the Committee will carry
it forward to the next cycle for
consideration.
Y
FAS
The committee was not able to come
to consensus on the value to be used
for this compression stress factor.
While the analysis used for the stress
recalibration showed that that the 0.25
value was conservative, the
compression stress does not govern
often and due to time constraints and
other higher priority items, this issue
will continue to be discussed in the
next code revision cycle.
Y
FAS
The Committee prioritized the
important Primary comments as well
as numerous editorial comments
assigned to the FAS Subcommittee
for consideration ahead of this
Secondary item, and as such, the
Committee will carry it forward to the
Y
19
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
next cycle for consideration.
291
Chapter
9
C121
thru
C148
S
Shear strength in multiwythe walls
not noted; ballot 04-F-014 received
outstanding negatives. Committee
should continue working on the item.
FAS
This item was balloted on 04-F-014
and received persuasive negatives. It
was re-balloted on 05-F-014 which
also had a persuasive negative. As the
committee agrees with the TAC
comment this is being balloted on
Ballot 07-F-021. Persuasive negative
received. Reballotted on 08-F-047.
Negative received. No change made.
Y
Item will be carried into the next
cycle for consideration.
300
9.1.8.2
C125
70
S
Previously, the modulus of rupture
values were ‘directly proportional’ to
the allowable flexural tensile stress
values, but this proportionality is
becoming looser with each edition of
the Code. Commentary should
reflect this.
FAS
The committee agrees but the
statement is still true. The values of
the MOR values are in flux and may
change further. The subcommittee
discussions have not resulted in a
ballot that is ready for Main
committee but work will continue as
time permits.
Y
302
Table
9.1.8.2
C126
10
P
FAS
The Committee prioritized other
important Primary comments assigned
to the FAS Subcommittee for
consideration, ahead of this item and
as such the Committee will carry it
forward for consideration.
Y
320
9.3.4.1.
1
C137
55
P
The MoR values are out of sync with
the flexural tension values of Table
8.2.4.2. The Allowable values were
increased during the last Code cycle.
But the MoR values were not
adjusted similarly. Either increase
the MoR values, or move the
allowable values back down.
The word “if present” at the end of
the sentence is confusing. It refers to
what? The element is prismatic,
simply supported, and the load is
uniformly distributed. If there is a
case where the resultant deflection is
not symmetric, then please list.
F&S
The Committee balloted a change
consistent with the TAC Comment
and ballot item 07-Q-13 that proposed
to delete the phrase in question. The
ballot items also made two
grammatical corrections: a comma is
inserted after “loading” and “results”
is changed to “result”.
07-Q-13 received a persuasive
Y
20
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
negative and a new ballot item was
presented on Main 08-Q-013. In
addition, the committee will consider
changing “element” to “member”
consistently throughout the
documents, as has been done by ACI
318, as new business for the next
cycle. Item passed.
350
11.2
C164
3
S
The chapter for strength design of
unreinforced conventional masonry
requires that P-Delta effects be
considered, per Section 9.2.4.3.
Should they also be considered for
unreinforced AAC masonry?
AA
C
The AAC subcommittee and Main
Committee did not consider the use of
P-Delta effects this cycle. The
comment is a good one, however
looking at the provisions of Section
9.2.4.3, they are not directly
applicable to AAC, in particular
9.2.4.3.3 and 9.2.4.3.4. We propose
that this item be considered new
business in the next cycle because this
is not an issue that needs to be
immediately addressed with respect to
life safety.
Y
361
Comme
ntary –
12.1.1
C179
60
S
This graphic shows more
information than the Code deals with
(beyond scope) and may be
misleading. Delete the reference to
the overlap in the building paper.
Delete the insulation (which does not
meet IBC or IECC requirements in
many jurisdictions) and state that
insulation is not shown for clarity.
VG
E
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Y
365
12.1.2
C182
46
S
There are many sets of industry
recommendations to limit the
deflection of masonry veneers, not
all of which are consistent. As an
item of new business review
available recommendations and
incorporate as a minimum
VG
E
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Y
21
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
VG
E
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Y
2016 Committee
Response
requirement in the next edition of the
MSJC.
Should the code provide a coderequired deflection limit for out-ofplane deflection of backing for
veneer, based on the
recommendations made by the
references listed in the commentary?
There are limits for vertical
deflections of veneer supporting
elements to limit veneer in-plane
deflection. Why not for out-ofplane?
Where does the basis for the
deflection limit of L/720 come from?
BIA Tech Note 28B only lists a
deflection limit up to L/600. Is there
another reference for L/720?
366
12.1.2
C182
49
S
It would be beneficial for the
commentary to provide additional
guidance on what wind load levels
should be used to calculate out-ofplane deflection, when evaluating
backing stiffness against the
industry-recommended deflection
limits. Factored loads or service
loads? What recurrence interval
should the wind loads be evaluated
at, the full design level or something
less? Because the ASCE 7-10
calculations for design wind loads
have changed to a “strength design
approach” with a load factor of 1.0,
the basic wind speeds and their
recurrence intervals have all been
22
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
There is a deflection limit listed at
the start of this paragraph which
reads “stud span length divided by
200 multiplied by the specified
veneer thickness.” Is it intended to
mean “stud span length divided by
the product of 200 times the
specified veneer thickness?” If so,
can it be written this way?
VG
E
Balloted on Main 08-V-005A and 08V-005B consistent with the TAC
Comment. Negatives received. Item
does not move into the working draft.
Y
Is the referenced NCMA TekNote
16-3A an active TekNote? I’m
having trouble locating it. Has it
VG
E
2016 Committee
Response
increased. For example, in ASCE 705 for a Risk Category II building in
the Midwest, the basic wind speed
was 90 mph and the recurrence
interval was 50 years; for the same
building in ASCE 7-10, the basic
wind speed is now 115 mph and the
recurrence interval is 700 years.
This change blurs the concept of
service level wind loads versus
design level wind loads. IBC
acknowledges the idea of reducing
the recurrence interval for wind
loads used to calculate wall
deflection, by allowing the wind
loads to be multiplied by 0.42, as
done within IBC 2012 Table 1604.3
“Deflection Limits.” Is this
something that might be beneficial to
mention in the MSJC commentary?
Otherwise, designers may get the
impression that a backing needs to be
designed to L/720 for a wind load
that only happens once every 700
years, which seems too stringent.
367
368
12.1.2
12.1.2
C182
C182
56
63
S
S
Item will be considered in the next
cycle.
Balloted on Main 08-V-011A and 08V-011B consistent with the TAC
comment. Negatives received. Item
Y
23
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
been superseded by another?
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
does not move into the working draft.
Item will be considered in the next
cycle.
369
12.1.4
C183
7
S
The limitation on the use of
dimension stone seems arbitrary. Is
there a technical reason an anchored
veneer cannot be stone? If not,
remove this limit. If so, state why.
The IBC and IRC do not have such a
limit.
Correct the reference to Section 1.1.3
(which addresses SI info.) Same in
Section 12.3.1(c) as well.
VG
E
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Y
372
12.2.1(c
)
C184
10
E
VG
E
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Y
376
12.2.1(e
)
C184
16
S
When designing an alternativedesigned anchored veneer, is
Paragraph 12.2.2.10.2.2 also
excluded from the requirements?
This paragraph requires that in highrisk seismic areas D E F that the
maximum wall area supported by
each anchor be reduced by 75%
when designing veneer anchors
prescriptively. Is this extra factor of
safety also expected when doing
alternative-designed anchored
veneer, or should this paragraph be
listed as an exclusion under the
alternative design section?
VG
E
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Y
380
12.2.2.3
.1.2
C185
7
P
For the paragraph regarding vertical
support of anchored veneer with
wood backing, when the changes to
this paragraph were discussed in the
TMS Spring 2012 Meetings, I
believe it was mentioned that veneer
on wood backing may be built taller
than 30 feet if movement is
VG
E
Balloted on Main Committee Ballot
07-V-007 consistent with the TAC
Comment. Persuasive negative was
found.
Y
Item will continue to be considered in
the next cycle.
24
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
accommodated and the veneer is
supported at each story. If this is the
case, can this paragraph be rewritten
to follow the construction of
12.2.2.3.1.3 for cold-formed steel
framing, which does allow this? If
not, can an additional sentence be
added to this paragraph to explicitly
state that brick veneer on wood
backing is not allowed above 30 feet
(38 feet at a gable), regardless of
what is supporting it?
381
12.2.2.3
.1.4 &
12.2.2.3
.1.5
C185
1322
S
Recommend moving these two
paragraphs into subparagraphs of
12.2.2.3.2. The first paragraph
addresses veneer used as an interior
finish. The second paragraph
addresses veneer supported on wood
construction. Both seem more
appropriately located within a
section dealing with support at floor
construction. If persuasive, then
their references within Paragraph
12.2.2.3.1 should be deleted.
VG
E
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Y
386
12.2.2.6
.2
C188
6
E
In the context of the wood and steel
stud standards, ‘framing’ refers to
the entire assembly of components.
This provision could be interpreted
as permitting anchors to be attached
to sheathing. Revise to clarify that
veneer anchors are required to be
attached to studs. Same for Section
12.2.2.7.2.
VG
E
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Y
394
12.3.2
C191
17
S
Add deflection limits for adhered
veneer.
VG
E
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Y
25
No.
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
396
Section
or
Article
#
13.2.1
C194
4
P
VG
E
Balloted on Main Ballot 07-V-013
consistent with the TAC Comment.
Persuasive negative found.
Item will continue to be addressed in
the next cycle
Y
397
13.2.1
C194
4
P
The design figure for glass block
cites ‘factored’ wind pressure. Here
it is ‘design’ wind pressure. In
commentary Figure CC-13.2-1 is is
‘ultimate’. Be consistent and clear
which load is correct.
As with other sections of the Code,
add requirement that the design loads
be determined in accordance with the
legally adopted building code, or
ASCE 7.
VG
E
Y
401
13.3.2.1
C196
11
S
Clarify what loads are considered in
calculating ‘total’ deflection.
VG
E
402
13.3.2.2
C196
15
S
VG
E
403
13.3.3.1
C196
27
S
In addition to the 12 ft height limit
above support, add additional
requirement for above grade plane.
Is the 200 lb/ft load a factored or
unfactored load?
411
14.2.3.1
C199
27
S
Is the 200 lb/ft load a factored or
unfactored load?
VG
E
414
14.2
C199
59
E
VG
E
418
14.2.3.5
C200
11
P
Move “Design is based on the
condition that gravity loads are
reasonably centered on the walls.” to
Commentary Section 14.2.3.1.
‘Service’ load is incorrect, I believe
this should be ‘nominal’ load. If
true, then this limit makes these
provisions almost useless as the 18%
of the MWFRS interior partition
pressure from ASCE 7 often will
(Note TAC comment 397 was
balloted concurrently with TAC
comment 396). Balloted on Main
Ballot 07-V-013 consistent with the
TAC Comment. Persuasive negative
found.
Item will continue to be addressed in
the next cycle
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Balloted on Main Ballot 07-V-026
consistent with the TAC Comment.
Persuasive negative found.
Item will continue to be addressed in
the next cycle
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Balloted on Main Ballot 07-V-026
consistent with the TAC Comment.
Persuasive negative found.
Item will continue to be addressed in
the next cycle
Y
VG
E
VG
E
2016 Committee
Response
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
26
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
420
14.3.2
C201
7
P
Comment
exceed 5 psf.
Delete Section 14.3.2. These
provisions were based on exterior
walls subjected to out-of-plane wind
pressures and are no longer
applicable to interior partitions of
enclosed buildings. Instead, add a
prescriptive minimum (such as the
vertical and horizontal distance
between openings shall not be less
than 3t or 24 in., whichever is less)
to prevent unrealistic opening
spacings.
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
VG
E
Balloted response for the TAC
Comment on Main 08-V-007:
Y
“The Committee prioritized other
primary comments as well as
numerous editorial comments
assigned to the VGE subcommittee for
consideration, ahead of this item since
the opening provisions in Chapter 14
were brought directly over from the
Empirical provisions and as such
have been applicable to partition
walls for many cycles. The
Committee will add as new business
in the next cycle, consideration of this
section.” Item passed.
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda
421
14.3.2
C201
23
S
What is a ‘virtual opening’?
VG
E
426
14.4
C203
10
S
VG
E
429
14.5.2
C203
31
E
This section only addresses
anchorage for horizontally spanning
elements – what about vertically
spanning elements?
Delete reference to Section 9.3.4.2,
this is already covered by the
reference to Section 5.2 and implies
that ASD is not permitted.
VG
E
Balloted on Main 08-V-008A and 08V-008B consistent with the TAC
comment. Negative was received on
each item. Items do not move into the
working draft.
Item will continue to be addressed in
the next cycle.
Y
437
A.1
C205
61
S
Please confirm the reference to
Chapter 8 since other Chapters can
be used for the design of lateralforce-resisting systems.
VG
E
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda
Y
439
A.1.1
C208
45
S
Revise as:
“Risk Category IV structures, or
VG
E
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
Y
2016 Committee
Response
Y
Y
27
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
portions thereof, are not permitted to
be designed…”
Where is the 35 ft height measured
from? I assume grade plane?
Sub
A.2
C209
5
S
443
A.4
C211
65
P
There are several requirements
discussed in this commentary section
that are not in the mandatory
requirements of the Code. If these
are required, add them to the Code.
VG
E
447
A.7.3
C217
38
S
Wythes bonded by ties in accordance
with A.7.3 are by definition noncomposite walls. Changes were
made in Main Ballot 06-R-009 that
assumes detailing in accordance with
A.7.3 provides composite action. A
negative was received on this ballot
item, stating that this was incorrect.
Subsequent discussion suggests that
the Subcommittee should reconsider
whether they wish to have this limit
on adjustable ties applied to noncomposite assemblies. Perhaps the
option to provide either adjustable or
non-adjustable ties, provided the
appropriate tie spacings are
provided.
R&
C
Additional requirements are needed
specific to the construction of
masonry infills in accordance with
Appendix B.
CR
1.1
S-3
1
S
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
440
474
2013 Committee Response
VG
E
Due to higher priority items, the
subcommittee has not resolved this
item, but it will stay on our agenda.
Balloted on Main Ballot 07-V-020A
consistent with the TAC Comment.
Item passed. Also balloted on Main
Ballot 07-V-020-B - persuasive
negative found. Reballot on 08-V010. Negative was received. Item
does not move into the working draft.
Work will continue next cycle on this
item.
This item has had a fair amount of
discussion at recent subcommittee
meetings, and the subcommittee
believed the issue was settled. The
comment indicates it is apparently
still not clear.
Y
Y
Y
The subcommittee would like to
revisit this topic and determine
whether there is an underlying
misunderstanding of what this section
is about. We propose to keep it on the
list for further discussion.
This item was balloted on 07-C-036
and received one negative that was
found persuasive. This item will be
considered by both the Infill and
Construction Requirements
subcommittees as future business in
Y
28
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
the next cycle.
480
1.4 B
S-15
9
S
As an item of new business, I would
encourage the Committee to consider
permitting (as an option) the use of
historical data or even the unit
strength method to provide
preconstruction confirmation of
compliance with f’m when prisms are
specified on a job. Currently, in
Quality Assurance Level C,
compliance with f’m is required prior
to and during construction. Many
plans and specifications require
similar compliance on other projects
as well. If the prism test option for
verification of compliance with f’m is
used, preconstruction prisms must be
constructed, and the expectation
would be that the results would be
available prior to the actual
construction - thus the prisms should
be constructed at least 30 days prior
to construction. Since materials are
not typically on the jobsite that far in
advance, this is very onerous, and
often an unrealistic requirement.
It seems that an acceptable
alternative would be to allow, as an
option, historical data, and/or the
unit strength method to be used for
the preconstruction check. Then if
prisms are desired for the actual
construction, they can be constructed
and tested. But at least the contractor
would not be forced to try to make
and test prisms before they typically
have access to the actual materials.
CR
This item was balloted on 07-C-037
and received several negative votes.
One was found persuasive. As
suggested by the TAC Comment, the
committee will continue to consider
the comment as new business in the
next cycle.
Y
29
No.
487
Section
or
Article
#
1.4
B.2.b
Page
S-18
Line
1
Classifi
cation
P
Comment
As a basis for such a change,
(perhaps) recall that the UBC had
permitted an option for historical
data to be used to determine
compliance with f’m.
One final point. We say the
contractor has the “option” to use
either the unit strength method or the
prism test method, so some may
question why this is needed.
Increasingly however, designers are
specifying the tests required on the
job, often including prisms. In such
cases, the contractor no longer has
the option to use the unit strength
method. In addition, in rare cases,
the contractor may want to use
prisms during construction to
“maximize” the materials he is
expecting. In this case, the unit
strength may be too conservative, but
historical data may support the
contractor’s desire to use those
materials to achieve the specified
strength. As such, for these reasons,
having this as an option, could give
the contractor reasonable options that
would be verified later by actual
prism breaks.
New research is available to update
Table 2 (Committee has been
provided this research –
“Recalibration of Unit Strength
Method …”). Please review this
research and revise Table 2
accordingly.
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
CR
This item was balloted on 07-C-041
and received several negative votes.
The Construction Requirements
subcommittee will continue to work
on this complex item and attempt to
resolve. Balloted on Main 08-C080A, 08-C-080B and 08-C-080C.
Item 08-C-080A passed. Negatives
received on 08-C-080B and 08-C-
Y
2016 Committee
Response
30
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
08C. Item does not move into the
working draft.
498
512
2.2
2.6 B
S-37
S-51
1
56
S
P
I have recently become aware that
lightweight grout (containing natural
and manufactured lightweight
aggregates) is being used with more
frequency. It is also my
understanding that designers are not
considering the potential structural
impact (i.e., bond strength) that
should be considered when using
lightweight grout in masonry
construction. Add design provisions
for lightweight grout (drawing on
corresponding ACI 318 provisions as
necessary) into the Code and
Specification.
Delete Table SC-8 and its reference
here. This data is sufficiently old so
as to be no longer applicable to
contemporary materials or
construction and provides
information that is likely to be more
confusing than informative.
CR
Note: A task group was established to
continue work on this item in
preparation for additional balloting
opportunities if presented through
public comment. If not, work will
continue in the next cycle.
In order to adequately address this
TAC Comment, several items must be
carefully evaluated for possible
structural implications. The TAC
Comment suggests bond strength as a
structural impact. The CR
Subcommittee is not aware of what
the appropriate bond strength (if any)
is and what significant impact (if any)
lightweight grout may have on the
bond strength.
Y
Should it be determined that the
structural implications are not
significant, this item may be more
effectively addressed within ASTM,
specifically, referencing lightweight
aggregates within ASTM C476.
CR
The CR Subcommittee will work with
the Main Committee to keep working
on this item in the next cycle.
The Committee can agree that the
information provided in Table SC-8
is historic, but it is applicable for
grout now more than ever. Many
people, particularly those associated
with concrete, are thoroughly
convinced that water is always
Y
31
No.
Section
or
Article
#
Page
Line
Classifi
cation
Comment
Sub
2013 Committee Response
Hold
over
(Y)
2016 Committee
Response
detrimental to a cementitious mixture
and nothing could be further from the
truth with respect to masonry grout.
As anyone in the masonry industry
knows, fluidity, typically provided by
water, is essential for grout placement
and the excess water dissipates into
the masonry units. This table is a
vital tool in educating the people
unfamiliar with masonry grout and
water content.
As a matter of new business, the CR
Subcommittee will explore additional
Commentary to address new
materials and construction and
attempt to develop language that
addresses new materials that may be
unfamiliar to the distributer or end
user.
32