Phil
Registered User
The errata for chapter 19 of the 2012 IBC is confusing http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/Errata/2012I-Codes/2012IBC/2012-IBC-19.pdf . There are two sets of errata to section 1905.1.9. After spending some time this morning trying to sort this out, I think both errata modify the same section of original code independently. The later errata only changes the indentation of a paragraph as shown in the original code. While the first errata changes the ACI code referenced and changes the year of ACI 318 code referenced and changes the section numbers referenced to be consistent with ACI 318-08. First, you need to mark-up your code book with changes in the second errata, then make the changes based on the first errata. This is not intuitive for me. I thought that the second errata should modify the first errata.
I do not know why the ICC decided to change the code reference from ACI 318-11 from ACI 318-08 for this section only. The original 2012 IBC replaced the entire text of the ACI section in question. Why did they not leave it at that, rather than have the code reference two different editions of ACI 318. Where they infringing upon ACI's copyrights?
Friday afternoon, I sent an email to the ICC to see if they can send me the full text of amended code. Hopefully, this will confirm my assumption. It should not be this difficult to sort out the intent of the errata. I have more experience with California Building Code. But, they mail replacement pages, so there is no confusion as to how the code should read.
I do not know why the ICC decided to change the code reference from ACI 318-11 from ACI 318-08 for this section only. The original 2012 IBC replaced the entire text of the ACI section in question. Why did they not leave it at that, rather than have the code reference two different editions of ACI 318. Where they infringing upon ACI's copyrights?
Friday afternoon, I sent an email to the ICC to see if they can send me the full text of amended code. Hopefully, this will confirm my assumption. It should not be this difficult to sort out the intent of the errata. I have more experience with California Building Code. But, they mail replacement pages, so there is no confusion as to how the code should read.