Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: building codes

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Gary,

THAT IS the move towards one national standard :-)

Paul Feather PE, SE
pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net
www.SE-Solutions.net
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Hodgson & Associates" <ghodgson(--nospam--at)vaxxine.com>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:16 AM
Subject: Re: building codes


> Mark, Charley and Scott,
> I have to give you guys in the states credit for keeping
> up with all those codes.  My head hurts just thinking about
> all those initials.  Is there no move toward one national
> model code with referenced national standards?
> Gary
> 
> On 12 May 2004 at 23:45, Scott Maxwell wrote:
> 
> > A couple of things to add to Charley's post...
> > 
> > Like ASCE 7...ACI 318, the MSJC (ACI 530), AISC ASD/LRFD spec, AISC
> > Seismic Spec, the NDS, and many other documents adopted into the IBC
> > (and the UBC...kind of) by refernece are all concensus standards.  The
> > reality is that if they are NOT concensus standards, then they will
> > more than likely NOT be adopted as part of the code (precisely why the
> > NEHRP Provisions don't get directly adopted...they are not a concensus
> > standard...first they are don't developed in a formal concensus
> > process...and second they are not written in mandatory language).
> > 
> > FWIW, the NEHRP Provisions _ARE_ used by the federal goverment as a
> > minimum level of seismic requirements.  This was done by way of
> > executive order.  As most "modern" codes (i.e. IBC) meet this minimum
> > standard now (as they are in essence based upon the NEHRP), the IBC
> > can typically be used instead.
> > 
> > Also, AISC is part trade organization, part technical organization as
> > are some of the others.  Charley is correct in that ACI is a "pure"
> > (if any is truly pure) techinical organization.
> > 
> > And to fill in, ICC is made from the "smushing" together of ICBO
> > (those that produced the UBC which was largely used out West), BOCA
> > (those that produced the BOCA model building code which was largely
> > used in the Midwest and the upper East coast), and SBBCI (those that
> > produced the SBC that was largely used in the South).
> > 
> > HTH,
> > 
> > Scott
> > Adrian, MI
> > 
> > On Wed, 12 May 2004, Charley Hamilton wrote:
> > 
> > > Mark -
> > >
> > > Hierarchy?  There's a hierarchy?  That might be nice.  Then again,
> > > it might be a disaster.
> > >
> > > The UBC and IBC are "model codes", meaning that theoretically
> > > these are adopted as "base" documents by code enforcement
> > > authorities.  The UBC was put out by ICBO, a building officials
> > > group HQd in Whittier, CA.  The IBC was put out by the ICC, an
> > > outgrowth of the ICBO and the various other code agencies from
> > > around the US. Theoretically these documents are created based on
> > > recommendations from engineers, building officials, and anyone else
> > > interested enough in the process to recommend a code change. The ICC
> > > administers the code, and I don't recall just now what the make-up
> > > of the balloting group is for code change approvals.  The UBC and
> > > IBC both reference various other documents, including ASTM
> > > specifications and things like the ACI and AISC codes.  The IBC
> > > "replaces" the UBC.  I guess they thought it sounded cooler to call
> > > it an "international" bulding code, which is probably just as well,
> > > since I'm not sure that it was ever adopted in a "uniform" manner. 
> > > Every jurisdiction seemed to have their additions.
> > >
> > > ASCE-7 is a consensus standard that theoretically defines
> > > loads and load cases for buildings and other structures, like
> > > the name suggests.  It is administered by ASCE.  In concept,
> > > ASCE-7 is meant to be a core document that other documents can
> > > reference to obtain definitions of consensus-based loadings.
> > > One *might* argue that this is a foundation document.
> > > I have no official opinion on the matter.  ;-)
> > >
> > > The AISC/ACI/EIEIO codes are administered by various trade
> > > associations (AISC/AISI/LGSEA/AWS) or technical associations
> > > (ACI) which believe that it is important that their chosen
> > > material have a design guide/manual/code that was developed
> > > by persons with expertise in that particular material.  These
> > > are often referenced or incorporated into "bulding codes" like
> > > UBC/IBC.  I also have no official opinion on whether or not
> > > these are fundamental documents.
> > >
> > > NEHRP is not, as far as I am aware, actually adopted anywhere
> > > as a requirement.  Is this incorrect?  I should be sure, but
> > > I'm not.  The NEHRP documents are the outgrowth (in theory)
> > > of research done to formalize a number of the procedures
> > > and processes that have been vaguely referenced in codes or
> > > practice publications.  This is what helps define the
> > > "use valid engineering methods to obtain..." section of many
> > > codes.  NEHRP started as a government program, strongly pushed
> > > by the engineering and policy communities, to help reduce the
> > > losses resulting from earthquakes.  I think some of the NEHRP
> > > provisions have been incorporated, as I believe Scott pointed
> > > out, in various model codes.  However, I don't know the extent
> > > or penetration.
> > >
> > > I hope that this leaves you feeling less like you're drowning
> > > in the alphabet soup.   Well, I hope it at least didn't make
> > > it worse.
> > >
> > > Charley
> > >
> > > --
> > > Charles Hamilton, PhD EIT               Faculty Fellow
> > > Department of Civil and                 Phone: 949.824.3752
> > >      Environmental Engineering           FAX:   949.824.2117
> > > University of California, Irvine        Email: chamilto(--nospam--at)uci.edu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > > *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********