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

RE: CODES: Evaluation Reports

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Bill:

 

ICC evaluation reports give you a high degree of confidence that a given product has been reviewed by a third party agency and if installed per the ER guidelines is acceptable.  There is not the same high degree of confidence for manufacturer claims when all they present is a marketing brochure.

 

ICC reports covering non-standard applications make the non-standard applications easy to approve.  An example might be some yahoos, from an unspecified state, who want to install a bunch of pre-frabricated buildings on piers they claim can resist 2200 lbs of shear.  All they have is a sales brochure.  The piers don’t have an ICC evaluation report.  Must be ok since an engineer licensed in another state specified them for his client the contractor, right? 

 

 

Respectfully,

Scott Haan

 

PS. During low tide Texas would fit into Alaska three times instead of the normal two times.

 

 

 


From: Polhemus, Bill [mailto:Bill.Polhemus(--nospam--at)tysonet.tyson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 10:36 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: CODES: Evaluation Reports

 

I guess I am puzzled by the phrase "alternative to the Building Code." I was under the impression that the Code is written in such a way as to admit essentially all methods to achieve the intent.

 

For example, if you have a special shear panel that is an "alternative" to what is specifically listed in the Code such as wood structural panels, you can submit it for testing as to what the strength is given a specific method of attachment, etc., so that values in a fashion similar to what you see published in the code itself are available to the designer. But this isn't an "alternative to the code" per se. You're still working toward the intent of the code--resisting lateral forces--and the code itself TELLS you that you can do this (as mentioned in someone's earlier post).

 

Alternative MATERIALS, but still the same intent.


From: Nels Roselund [mailto:njineer(--nospam--at)att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:29 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: CODES: Evaluation Reports

The ER is not a part of the Code – it allows a particular product to be used as an alternative to the Code.

 



This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, then you have received this email in error and any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of your unintended receipt by reply and then delete this email and your reply. Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates will not be held liable to any person resulting from the unintended or unauthorized use of any information contained in this email or as a result of any additions or deletions of information originally contained in this email.