Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: ASCE 7-98 Wind Design

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Mike,

As to the 2000 IBC referencing ASCE 7-98, the IBC in question (i.e. 2006,
2003, 2000, etc) will ALWAYS reference a slightly older set of "material"
standards (i.e. ASCE 7, ACI 318, MSJC [aka ACI 530, et al], NDS, AISC
Specs, etc).  This is because the IBC requires a "fully" printed
(i.e. a finished version with a real cover that can be submitted
and review/"played" with at IBC hearings) standard for such a standard to
be referenced.  This means that typically those standards must be
completed and printed at least a year before the IBC is to go out.  As a
result, the IBC 2000 references ASCE 7-98, ACI 318-99, 1999 MSJC, 1997
NDS, 1989 AISC ASD spec, 1993 AISC LRFD spec plus 1998 supplement, etc;
the IBC 2003 references ASCE 7-02, ACI 318-02, the 2002 MSJC, the 2001
NDS, the 1989 AISC ASD spec plus 2001 supplement, the 1999 AISC LRFD spec,
etc; and the 2006 IBC will reference ASCE 7-05, ACI 318-05, 2005 MSJC,
2005 (I believe} NDS, and the 2005 (I believe) ASD/LRFD AISC spec.

Now, FWIW, the 2008 IBC (assuming that they don't adjust the cycle) will
be forced to remain with ASCE 7-05 as ASCE 7 has decided to go to a 5 year
cycle, so their next edition will not be available until 2010.

But...to take your "unnoticed" item a little forward, take a look at the
material standards that are referenced.  Rather than try to explain in
general term what I mean, I will give an example.  The 2006 IBC will
reference ASCE 7-05 for loading requirements.  Yet I believe that the 2005
MSJC (masonry code) still will reference ASCE 7-02 for references to
loading.  Now, this presents a little be of a potential conflict as ASCE
7-05 will be the "law of the land" for those that adopt the 2006 IBC, but
when you go and use the 2005 MSJC it will be telling you instead to use
ASCE 7-02 for things like load combinations.  From a practical point, this
is not likely to be a too big an issue as a lot from ASCE 7-02 will be the
same as ASCE 7-05, but it can create some confusion.  This little
"problem" results from both the MSJC and ASCE 7 working on their current
editions at the same time and not necessarily being able to coordinate too
well (i.e. how can the MSJC coordinate some from ASCE 7 that ASCE 7 does
at the last minute of the cycle?  in otherwords, ASCE 7 makes a change
that affects the MSJC, but the MSJC must be done in order to get
referenced into the IBC so does not really have the time to coordinate the
last change of ASCE 7 and still be referenced by the IBC...to put it
simply, it is not just an "easy matter" of coordinating).

HTH,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Michael L. Hemstad wrote:

> My thanks to Padmanabhan Rajendran and Bill Polhemus for their help.
>
> The reason I am using ASCE 7-98 is because it is referenced by IBC 2000,
> which in turn is referenced by the latest (2003) Minnesota Building
> Code.
>
> This points out an unnoticed (at least by me, until now) disadvantage of
> a Code referencing a Code which references a Code:  I'm stuck with a 7
> year old document which is out-of-date technically, and worse yet, no
> longer maintained.  And while it's easy to say "just use the current
> code," I can't always do that, especially when I'm feeding loads from
> ASCE 7 into an AISC or ACI material code.
>
> Wish I had a one-line quip toward a solution, but I don't.  Except to
> wish for a government council that would coordinate all this stuff and
> keep The Code current and consistent.  (Take another breath, Bill--it
> won't happen in our lifetimes.)
>
> At least we're better off here than in California, which is still using
> the 97UBC.  For those with a taste for subtle irony, THAT'S ironic.
>
> Actually, I also consider us better of for the moment than Texas.  I had
> a small job there recently.  (Bill, you've been outsourced.)  The city
> invokes IBC 2003, which references ASCE 7-02 (which I thus had to buy),
> which I was disappointed to find references API 650 for what I needed.
> That sucker is expensive.
>
> Mike Hemstad
> St. Paul, Minnesota
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********