Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: ASCE 7

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill,

ASCE 7 (and the "material" standards such as ACI 318, the MSJC [masonry
code], NDS, AISC Specs) must get "adopted by reference" by the IBC.  This
happens as a proposal to the ICC/IBC folks (i.e. code officials).  They
vote on whether or not to adopt such standards into the IBC code by
reference.  In addition, there are other proposals that some may try to
get the ICC/IBC folks to put directly in the IBC...these could be
proposals that could not/did not make it through "appropriate" standard's
concensus process, proposals that were not even attempted through the
"appropriate" standard's concensus process, and so on.  In addition, there
can be "inconsistancies" between the proposed adopted standards on things
like terms, or other items that might need to be coordinated (keep in mind
that ASCE 7 is working on the 2005 edition of the code loads while say ACI
318 is working on the 2005 edition of concrete provisions...they both
finish about the same time...there may need to be some "last minute"
coordinating that could be "discovered" at the IBC hearings).  The end
result is the hearing process and the process of getting the various
standards can reveal some items that might need to be "tweaked" to make
things make sense.

FWIW, the IBC hearings are basically like the concensus process of the
various "material" standards (I use the term "material" loosely as I also
include ASCE 7 in that).  It is the IBC's way to propose and discuss
changes.  Basically, anyone (I think but not sure) can propose a change to
the IBC.  Such a change is presented at hearings and then discussion can
occur.  The code officials can then use the discussion to determine how
they will vote on the proposed changes.  It just so happens that sometime
the proposal is something like "use ACI 318-05 for the concrete
provisions".  If ACI 318-05 did not exist and the structural concrete
provisions were directly in the IBC code, then all of the proposals would
be specific "line item" changes.  But, since ACI 318-05 (as an example)
exists, there is at least once proposal each cycle to adopt by reference
ACI 318...and then there still could be other concrete related proposals
that could modify ACI 318, delete parts of ACI 318, or add other items to
the ACI 318 provisions.  So, you can think of the IBC hearings as the
"model building code committee" working on proposed changes, but that many
times the "committee" takes the "easy" way out and just adopts "pre-made"
sets of provisions.

HTH,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Bill Polhemus wrote:

> Scott Maxwell wrote:
>
> >David,
> >
> >As others have said, yes...there is a new version forthcoming.  The 2005
> >edition will be out relatively soon.  The committee is currently finishing
> >a ballot on some "supplement" issues that I believe arose from the IBC
> >hearings.  I am not sure if those issue being balloted will be in the 2005
> >edition or if they will do a "supplement" to the 2005 edition.
> >
> I'm curious:
>
> If by "IBC hearings" you mean comments on the work on the IBC, why does
> this have direct bearing on ASCE 7?
>
> I thought that IBC (and NFPA for that matter) referenced ASCE 7, not the
> other way around.
>
> Excuse the ignorant question, I am not plugged in to the "new" consensus
> process for building code development and truly don't understand how it
> works. It seems like it ought to be that IBC has reps on the ASCE
> committee (voting or non-voting) and reports back to the IBC so they can
> be apprised. It just sounds like "cart before the horse" to this
> untutored observer.
>
> --
> Bill Polhemus, P.E.
> Polhemus Engineering Company
> http://www.polhemus.cc/
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********