Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Codes

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dennis,

I am sure your FAVORITE organization, SEAOC, will likely ultimately put
something together at least on the inspection issue.  I suspect this
because they did for the UBC (actually I believe it was SEAONC that did
it...I have an electronic copy around here somewhere).

And be careful...it sounds from Steve's post is that it will be the IRC
(not the IBC) that is used for residential construction.  And I _KNOW_
that there are some significant differences between the IRC and the IBC
(even though I have not put my grubby little hands on an IRC).  After all,
the IRC has to have all the wonderful conventional framing provisions that
you just LOVE. <grin>

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Dennis Wish wrote:

> The article I read on the NFPA and IBC (which will be used for
> residential) raises great concerns. It's a little early to react, but I
> agree with Rick Drake (for maybe the first time) that someone must
> document the differences which will ultimately be adopted as the
> California Building Code.
> Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:53 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Codes
>
>
> 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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********