Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Code Costs, Redux[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: RE: Code Costs, Redux
- From: "Harold Sprague" <spraguehope(--nospam--at)hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:46:19 +0000
My diagnosis is UBC withdrawal symptoms.Just look at all of the money you saved on code purchases over the last 10 years living in California. You can take that money and apply it to a good UBC detox clinic. The rest of us had to learn new codes, change practices accordingly, and shell out big bucks. For California, structural engineering evolution time stopped 10 years ago. The HMS Beagle of structural engineering was banned from California.
I think that once you get into it and read the commentaries, you will see the value and the need for the changes. The developers of the codes are slowing down. The pace has become too fast. It needed quick changes in the early days just to get consistency in the merging of the 3 model codes and to incorporate the new seismic maps. Again the pace is slowing. Consider that the next NEHRP is 2008 and the next ASCE 7 is 2010.
The code developers do not change the code just to be capricious. The developers are very conscientious and avoid change for change's sake. But when something is determined to be broken, it must be fixed. Granted, the developers make mistakes. Major changes will take a while to shake out the problems. I have every confidence that the new codes are far superior to the old 1997 UBC.
Regards, Harold Sprague
From: "DBruckman" <bruckmandesign(--nospam--at)verizon.net> Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org> Subject: Code Costs, Redux Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:17:41 -0700 Okay.Now I think I begin to understand. Sitting innocently here in CA, happily wallowing in a 10 year old UBC, I had no idea what the hub-bub was over code costs. THEN, after code conversation here, I decided I'd get myself moving into the 2006 IBC in anticipation of its adoption here next year. What do I find? First, there are tons of references to lots and lots of OTHER codes, which now I see I'm going to have to go out and buy as well. Heck, the second paragraph of the code exempts detached single family dwellings and directs me to something called the International Residential Code. Cha-ching.There goes another $80 just to work on houses. I bet I find it identical topertinent sections of this code, but I won't know until AFTER I fork over the money. Everywhere I see sly references to weird esoteric stuff like 1612 which has references to something called Flood Insurance Rate Map, aswell as to something called NAVD and to NGVD . Do I have to buy those x allthe other obscure references found elsewhere? And what am I to make of stuff like Figures 1613.5(1-4) for that little commercial strip center I'm working on in Burbank? You can bet the CBC will have its own map. Cha-ching. I'm finding things that I'm sure the CA code writers will likely delete entirely, like probably all of Chapter 11.. Cha-ching. Anyway, you get my drift. Now I get it. I'll have to get all of it, and pay for it handsomely.. Second, and this is really what I'm on about, I'm finding the IBC a rathersloppy code so far. I may be too unfamiliar with it so far, but I'm finding syntax loopholes that are sure to drive me and plan checkers crazy for years to come; I'm finding lack of direction from section to section, which bringsup just what applies to what. I'm finding stuff that is more lenient than the CBC is now, which if adopted by CA would be the first time in my careerI've seen something relaxed instead of strengthened. I doubt that kind of stuff will survive amendment here in CA. Now perhaps this is an Architect'snightmare more than an engineer's nightmare, since there doesn't seem to bemuch about engineering that doesn't direct you elsewhere anyway, be it ASCE7 or AITC or ASTM-(nnnn) or whatever, but overall, is anyone else findingthis code more ambiguous than prior codes or do I just have 97UBC withdrawalsymptoms? DB
_________________________________________________________________PC Magazine?s 2007 editors? choice for best Web mail?award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- Prev by Subject: Re: Code Costs, Redux
- Next by Subject: Re: Code Costs, Redux
- Previous by thread: RE: Standard format of submission of structural design calculations.
- Next by thread: Re: Code Costs, Redux