Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Code Costs, Redux

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Keep in mind that the IRC is a prescriptive code.  It is not really
"meant" for engineering use.  I believe that much of its use is limited to
low to moderate seismic use.  Thus, it is entirely possible that you maybe
"forced" into the IBC instead of the IRC in California anyways.

The point is that if your house project ends up outside the prescriptive
limits of the IRC, then you will have to design the home per the IBC.  And
my guess is such that many California homes (especially custom design
jobbies) will not fall under the IRC.  So, I am betting that you may not
need it as much as you first assume.

And I would second Harold's belief that your are suffering (or will be
soon) from UBC withdrawl.  As he correctly points out, you have not had
ANY real code expenses as you have "lagged" with the 97 UBC for so long.
So, get over it and welcome to the club!  ;-)


Adrian, MI

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, DBruckman wrote:

> 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 to
> pertinent 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, as
> well as to something called NAVD and to NGVD .  Do I have to buy those x all
> the 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 rather
> sloppy 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 brings
> up 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 career
> I'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's
> nightmare more than an engineer's nightmare, since there doesn't seem to be
> much about engineering that doesn't direct you elsewhere anyway,  be it ASCE
> 7 or AITC or ASTM-(nnnn) or whatever, but overall, is anyone else finding
> this code more ambiguous than prior codes or do I just have 97UBC withdrawal
> symptoms?
> DB

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********