Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: UBC - Discrepancies between various printings

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

-----Original Message-----
From:	bcain(--nospam--at)ebmud.com [SMTP:bcain(--nospam--at)ebmud.com]
Sent:	Tuesday, August 05, 1997 4:31 PM
To:	seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
Subject:	UBC -  Discrepancies between various printings

After finding discrepancies in the section
numbering in Chapter 19 of the '94 UBC between
different printings during discussions between
between Tarek Mokhtar and myself regarding tension
tie members in concrete, I was discussing these
discrepancies with one of my colleagues.  He said
he had compared some nail values between two
different printings of the '94 UBC and they did
not agree.

I looked at the 1st and 6th printings (the two
available in my office) and found that, in Table
23-I-G--SAFE LATERAL STRENGTH AND REQUIRED
PENETRATION OF BOX AND COMMON WIRE NAILS DRIVEN
PERPENDICULAR TO GRAIN OF WOOD, the values of both
the required penetration and the allowable loads
DO NOT AGREE.  The 6th printing requires from 3 to
10% greater penetration while reducing allowable
loads from 3 to 32% (the 32% reduction is for 50d
Commons).

I wonder how many more nasty little surprises like
this there are between various printings of the
'94 UBC?  And does the '97 Code have the same
problem?

Bill Cain, SE
Oakland, CA

[Dennis S. Wish PE]  This is interesting. If the issue came down 
to liability, who is responsible for designing based upon a code 
value that may be wrong. In court, if you produce the code and 
the value used are you liable. AND is it not the responsibility 
of the publisher of the code to let you know of the error 
without cost - like a recall measure?

Interesting problem,
Dennis Wish PE