Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Missing Errata. CBC 2001 effective Nov. 2002

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
David,

I will first put a nice disclaimer:  This is solely the opinion of one
person and ye who follow it do so at their own risk. (OK, so I don't have
the whole "lawyer speak" down pat <grin>)

Now, if the errata is what I consider a "true" errata (I define that in a
second), then you should have no problem with incorporating it from a
legal point of view.  If on the other hand it is not a "errata" or parts
of an errate that would be "true", then you could face legal problems if
you incoporated it.

To me, a "true" errata is a list of mistakes that you incorporated into
the document at printing.  In otherwords, for a code like document, the
committee drafted, debated, voted on, and approved something that then was
reviewed during a public comment period and was officially adopted as part
of the code.  If then during the page layout and print process something
gets changed from what the committee made, then THAT mistake is a true
errata mistake.  This means that in reality if you use what was printed
(i.e. the mistake) you are not really following the code since what was
printed was not really what approved using the code development process.
Thus, in my mind, you really should be using the errata, otherwise you are
NOT following the code.

Now, occasional someone may try to slip something in the errata that does
not really fit the scenario above (while it maybe attempted, it is rarely
successful from my experience).  This would be something like the
committee realizes after the document is printed that they put some small
minor thing in there that is really "boneheaded".  Thus, they realize
their mistake (even though it went through the full approval process
without being caught) and want to correct it.  That is NOT what an errata
is for.

Basically, if an errata item changes the intent (or even form) of what the
committee actually approved, then in my mind it is not a "true" errata
item, but rather a thinly veiled code change.  This can even be for things
that somebody mistyped during the original draft phase, but if that
mistyped item remained in its incorrect form through the whole code
development process without being caught, then THAT is what was approved
even though it is clear wrong.  You would then need to do an "emergency
code change" to correct it, rather than an errata.

Obviously, the tough part then becomes how do you and I know which errata
items are "true" and which are not "true".  For that, I don't have a nice
easy answer for.

Just my thoughts.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, David Merrick wrote:

> Mr. Adams:
>
> I got no response to this issue of uncorrected errata for new code
> printings.
>
> I suspect that the law is written to adopt the code and can not include the
> later made errata. As far a as using an errata for design, it may cost money
> and time to demonstrate the intent of the code by analysis, testing or by
> delivering new codes yet to be adopted by law. (that too is a gamble if not
> to be adopted). It may help to find a contradiction in the code to
> demonstrate a need to use an errata.
>
> A similar problem has come up with my more recent posting.  The concrete
> shear wall strength equations. I have a case where the equation 11-32
> demands 30% more strength than the equation 21-7. The code does not exclude
> 11-32 for higher seismic zones. David A. Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E. has
> stated it is intended that equation 21-7 should only control in a higher
> zone. The new ACI 318-02 might clarify this but is not the adopted code for
> California. I have heard that California may not adopt the IBC. I am ordered
> the 318-02. I was surprised that 318-95 is no longer available but is
> referenced in the IBC2000 see page 675 of the IBC. I have decided to use
> equation 11-32 of the CBC. I professionally will not design for less than
> the legal requirement and not less than that intended by the code and that
> consistent with the code.
>
> David Merrick, SE
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Adams" <davea(--nospam--at)laneengineers.com>
> To: "David Merrick" <mrkgp(--nospam--at)winfirst.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 4:16 PM
> Subject: FW: Missing Errata. CBC 2001 effective Nov. 2002
>
>
> David,
>
> Did you ever receive a reply to this?  I saved it because I was
> interested in the response as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave K. Adams, S.E.
> Lane Engineers, Inc.
> 979 N. Blackstone St.
> Tulare, CA 93274
> PH:  (559) 688-5263
> FAX: (559) 688-8893
> E-mail:  davea(--nospam--at)laneengineers.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Merrick [mailto:mrkgp(--nospam--at)winfirst.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:58 PM
> To: SEAINT
> Subject: Missing Errata. CBC 2001 effective Nov. 2002
>
>
> I have the California Building Code 2002, effective Nov 2002, Ordered in
> December.
> This document is the 1997 UBC in whole with the California amendments.
>
> I have found many 1997UBC errata from before Nov. 02 that are not part
> of
> this document.
>
> Am I to manually add previous errata to correct this new code printing?
> Is there a list of updated errata for the CBC?
>
> Are some 1997UBC errata invalid? Are applying errata defendable in
> court?
>
> I am tired of spooning out money for half baked documents. Is this
> another?
>
> David Merrick, SE
>
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********