Roger Turk wrote:
> The IBC is just an index to other codes and standards. Some parts of the
> list only changes to a referenced code or standard. Instead of having
> one book to look at, we will now have to look at the IBC and see what it
> references, then drag that reference out to see what it requires, then
> out the local amendments to see how they change the requirements.
I guess it depends upon your perspective, but I prefer it this way.
if I was familiar with ACI 318 and the AISC Manual, I was faced with a
Code which was not clear where it differed from the national reference codes
already familiar with. Many engineers simply used the reference codes for
rather than review the detailed rewritten code provisions, out of
trying to understand two codes. By using codes by reference with local
it is clear to me where the local code differs from the national reference
that I am familiar with.
> However, if past performance of the UBC is any indication, the references
> will be at least one release behind. So, in addition to checking the
> requirements in the first paragraph, the prudent engineer would then have
> check to see if there is a more recent edition of the referenced code or
> standard, and then check to see if there are more stringent requirements
> the latest edition.
Although an engineer should be prudent when familiar with code changes which
the result of recent failures, I do not agree that an engineer must design
the latest code provisions if a previous code is the code that has been
adopted. For example, I use the rebar splice lengths from ACI 318-89 when
in an area which references the 1994 UBC, since that is the legally adopted
standard. I am not aware of serious problems with those rebar requirements
feel that I should follow the legally adopted code. And in some cases the
requirements may be less stringent than the adopted code - I know of one
ran into problems because a later code was used for classifying building
where the new code provisions were less stringent than the adopted code