Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: building codes

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
John:

Be careful...this is a big difference on how "enforcable" a mandatory
language standard is vs. how "enforcable" a non-mandatory language
standard is.  While you can certainly debate whether something that
represents "standard of care" or "due diligence" can become de facto law,
if a non-mandatory language standard is somehow considered the "standard
of care" or "due diligence", then it can be rather difficult to enforce as
non-mandatory language standard will present options that COULD be follow
not that HAVE to be followed.  So, the arguement in court will be MUCH
more difficult.

Of course, making a code provisions stick in court can be difficult as
well...in theory, code provisions (mandatory language) are supposed to
have only one clear interpretation, but many times can be rather
inadvertantly unclear.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Fri, 14 May 2004, John P. Riley wrote:

> Gail,
>    My purpose was not to debate legal semantics, nor to start an argument,
> nor to display library skills.  I'm merely a structural design engineer.  I
> truly don't have time to study the law or worry too much about which "code"
> has been adopted within a jurisdiction.  The concept of "due diligence"
> dictates that "standards" be adhered to, no matter what an alderman or
> governor has acted upon.  If I'm right about that, then in effect
> "standards" are law.
>    I may be entirely wrong in my assessment, but debating it is not
> splitting hairs in a non-productive way.
> John Riley
> --------------
>
>
> In a message dated 5/13/2004 5:50:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> jpriley485(--nospam--at)peoplepc.com writes:
>   ACI 318 is law when an expert witness proclaims it standard practice in
> open court.
> I am not sure this is how you meant it to come out, but no,  the fact an
> expert witness says something does not make it true.
>
> And although ACI 318 may be "standard practice",  in areas where there is a
> building code, the particular version of ACI 318 which is "the law" depends
> on what has been adopted by reference through the building code.  For
> example,  DC uses BOCA 1996,  so ACI 318-95 is "the law."  Similarly,  I
> believe that ACI 318-95 is "the law" in California because the 2001
> California Building Code adopted the 1997 Uniform Building Code, which in
> turn adopted ACI 318-95 by reference.  In states that have adopted the IBC
> 2000, ACI 318-99 would be the law.  This can become a significant issue in a
> litigation.
>
> Similarly,  although one can split hairs all day, it is not particularly
> productive.  For someone trying to figure out the hierarchy of the various
> documents used in structural engineering, it is worth noting that there are
> some documents,  most notably the ACI Concrete and Masonry Building Code
> Requirements and the American Welding Society Codes,  that have the word
> "code" in their title but are actually "standards"  and are meant to acquire
> legal authority by being used as part of a legally adopted building code.
>
> For example,  this is the AWS statement of use:
>
> All standards (codes, specifications, recommended practices, methods,
> classifications, and guides) of the American Welding Society are voluntary
> consensus standards that have been developed in accordance with the rules of
> the American National Standards Institute. When AWS standards are either
> incorporated in, or made part of, documents that are included in federal or
> state laws and regulations, or the regulations of other governmental bodies,
> their provisions carry the full legal authority of the statute.
>
> So, in terms of the hierarchy,  these documents are "below" the model codes.
>
> Standards is kind of a loose term, although I usually think of them as
> something somewhat official, either ANSI approved or aspiring to that level.
> The IBC 2000 has an appendix with a  listing of documents it calls
> "Referenced Standards."  It would probably be better if this was titled
> "Referenced Documents",  since some like the PTI Slab on Ground document are
> really not standards, they are basically general information and
> recommendations.
>
> Gail Kelley
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.679 / Virus Database: 441 - Release Date: 5/7/2004
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********