Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Codes

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Rick,

You have pointed out the two "weaknesses" that I am aware of.

First, I am not aware of a national standard on QA/inspections.  If so,
then both model building codes will have to come up with their own
provisions in this area.  As a result, there will more than likely be
differences (and likely some what significant).

Second, the IBC process allows for "modifications" from the accepted
national standards in a particular area.  Supposedly, they are moving from
this to ultimately be like what NFPA is doing (NFPA supposedly will only
adopt national standards with no or very, very minor modification).  As a
result, the IBC will likely "create" some differences that have to be
dealt with as they will not be able the resist the urge to make
changes/modifications to national standards.

In theory, the second of the two should eventually disappear if the IBC
follows its intent.  The first of two could be solved by a standards group
creating a QA/inspection standard (if one does not already exist).  This
could be something that ASCE or NCSEA could do (ASCE is probably better
equipped currently to do it, but their standardization process can be a
little "messy" at times...their process can make it REALLY difficult to
get some things passed in a reasonable time frame).  I do believe that
there are some SEAs that have some QA/inspection documents that could be
transformed into a standard with some work (i.e. SEAOC has their
"interpretation" document that "explains" the UBC requirements if I recall
corrects and I think BASE has some sort of document as well).

Ultimately, I could forsee a possibility, with some work, where both the
IBC and the NFPA have about 10 pages or so of structural provisions that
just say "see this" or "see that".  Then, we can just let the plumbers and
others deal with the differences between two difference codes.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)Fluor.com wrote:

>
> NCSEA efforts to assure that both 2003 IBC and 2002 NFPA 5000 refer to the
> same ANSI-accredited standards (AISC, ASCE, ACI, etc.) should be applauded.
> However, I think that we must still deal with the differences between the
> two codes, as jurisdictions start to adopt one or the other.
>
> 2003 IBC Chapter 17 (Structural Tests And Inspections) differs from 2002
> NFPA 5000 Chapter 40 (Quality Assurance During Construction).  I'm still
> trying to figure out what my responsibilities (and liabilities) as EOR will
> be with the two codes.  Has anybody made a detailed comparison of the QA
> differences between the two codes?
>
> 2003 IBC requirements for Earthquakes (Sections 1613 through 1623) takes 40
> pages, although it does allow use of ASCE 7-02 as an alternative.  2002
> NFPA 5000 requirements for Earthquakes (Section 35.10) takes less than a
> page due to simple references to ASCE 7-02.
>
> There are probably other differences that will affect us.  It will take
> many years of "BETA testing" of these codes to completely identify the
> impacts of dealing with two national codes.
>
> Rick Drake, SE
>
> *********
>
>
>
>
>                       "Jim Persing"
>                       <jpersing@fhoarch.c      To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
>                       om>
>                       07/29/03 05:02 PM        cc:
>                       Please respond to
>                       seaint                   Subject:  Codes
>
>                                                                                                                                  .....
>
>
>
>
>
> I just finished reading the ASCE Practice Periodical (Aug. 2003) article on
> NFPA 5000 and it got me to wondering - again, when are we, as structural
> engineers, going to stand up and tell our legislators what we want for a
> code.  We just seem to be sitting back waiting for the plumbers and fire
> chiefs to have their way with the codes and then we'll complain to no end
> on this list why we have to deal with 2 codes that are entirely different.
> And with one that probably won't even work because its never been tried
> (we're all going to be beta testers for the NFPA).
>
> I have been using building codes for 35 years and have lived and breathed
> the UBC for all of that time.  I really don't know why I would want to
> switch.  Even with all of its flaws I think it has served us well.  The IBC
> is a very good compilation of the three model codes and was put together by
> people who have been writing building codes forever.  We - the
> architectural and structural community - have wanted a single code for
> years.  Now that that is within our grasp we are standing by and watching
> the whiney plumbers and fire chiefs, with all of their powerful union
> money, grab our code from us.
>
> I have probably not used any of the NFPA codes for more that just a few
> times.  But the NFPA tells me that they have been in the code business for
> 100 years.  Well, why did it take them 97 years to decide to have a
> building code?  It's all about money and power and their lack of desire to
> work with anybody else to accomplish something for the good of the design
> community.  And who's going to run our building departments?  Fireman and
> plumbers?  When was the last time that you saw a fire chief get interested
> in the results of a concrete cylinder test?  Or who cared about bolt
> inspections or weld tests?
>
> I don't know where anybody else is on this but I want to see one code that
> I have to work with and understand in depth in order to provide my client
> with the best design possible.  If I have to juggle codes, plan review
> comments, inspection criteria, new code sections, different update
> seminars, etc, then I cannot perform the best for any one project.
>
> When are we going to tell our structural engineers associations, ASCE,
> AISC, ACI, ACEC, NSPE et all, that we want the IBC.  We are so good at the
> technical end of our work that we won't step up and face the matters that
> really count.
>
> Rant over (or maybe just beginning)
> Jim Persing, PE, SE
> Washington, California, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Arizona, Alaska & Hawaii
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person
> or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
> and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient
> of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review,
> retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any
> action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.  Any views expressed in this message
> are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect
> the views of the company.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********