Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: NFPA 5000 - Why? And Where?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Mel,

Consensus means that essentially everyone agreed with what is contained in
the document.  It basically means that a small group cannot get some
procivision included that others may not really agree with nor can that
small group block a provision getting into the code without having a good,
solid reason/rationale.

In the U.S., a concensus document usually means a document that was
produced using ANSI accredited procedures or procedures based upon ANSI's
"model" for the concensus process (but not ANSI accredited).  This
involves things like balance (meaning that one particular interest group
cannot control the committee...the number of manufacturer's is balanced
by non-manufacturer's, etc) on the code committee, the meetings must be
public, a negative vote by someone on a proposed change can only be
"overriden" by certain procedures that usually require a very high
percentage of the committee (usually unanimous or darn close) declaring
that the reason for the negative vote was "non-pursuasive" (i.e. "we've
been doing it this way for 20 years" does not cut it...there has to be a
solid technical reason with calculations or research to back up the
reason), etc.  The various "material" codes (including ASCE 7, which is
not really a material code but a load code) such as ASCE 7, ACI 318,
AISC's LRFD and ASD specs, the MSJC, and the wood NDS are all concensus
documents (and I believe all are done with ANSI accredited processes and
most are also ANSI standards).

The point is that the IBC code is done in the "old fahsion" way, to a
certain degree.  While it is essentially a document that references ANSI
standards or standards credit under ANSI concensus based procedures, it
does still hold hearings where any single individual can propose a change
to any one of those referenced standards or other parts of the IBC and
that proposed change is voted upon by the IBC "members" (i.e. members of
ICBO, BOCA, and SBC) and approved by some sort of a majority.  If there
are negative votes on such a change proposal, they are basically
completely ignored assuming that there enough positive votes to pass the
proposal.  Where as in a concensus process, those negative votes would
have to be resolved (i.e. either found non-persuasive or modifications
made to proposal that would cause the person voting "no" to change their
vote to "yes") before the proposed change would go into effect.

To get a better idea of what a concensus process involves, take a look at
ACI's Technical Committee Manual (available on the ACI website,
www.concrete.org, under the menu item "Forms & Documents" under
"Committees" on the left hand side menu) or ANSI's Procedures for Standard
Development (available on ANSI's site, www.ansi.org, under the "Reference
Library").  I am sure that you could also look at ASCE's or AISC's
procedures, except that I am not sure where they might be (or not) on
those organization's websites (I am familiar with ACI's since I used to be
a ACI staff engineer, which is also where I got familiar with ANSI's model
procedures since ACI's procedures are designed to meet ANSI's model
procedures...thus, be "ANSI accredited").

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 MJSLAYSMAN(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:

> Bill
>
> The City of Phoenix has announced its intent on adopting the NFPA code
> instead of the IBC codes sometime next year.  Phoenix is currently on the
> 1997 UBC.  This is supposed to be in response to the NFPA code being a
> "consensus" code and the IBC not being one, whatever that means.  I am not
> totally clear on what being a concessus code means and why IBC is not one.
> Interesting fact is that the rest of the state has or is adopting the IBC
> 2000 and IRC Codes leaving Phoenix to go it alone.  I don't know what will
> happen when we submit a specification on epoxy or roof deck with an ICBO
> number to the City of Phoenix.  Could be a very interesting transition.
>
> Mel Slaysman
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********