Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: ASCE 7-05 Errors

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I think they actually balked at the IBC due to the NFPA and the fireman's union. I am for the centralization of codes by reference. So I have to by AISC manual...I do anyway. I have to buy the ACI...every engineer working in concrete should. NDS is cheap. And the ASCE is another code. So say a 600 bucks every 3-4 years (hopefully that extends) you got most of your codes. Doesn't seem so bad, an I'm sure most of your decent size offices buy most of that stuff for you anyway (or at least has a library for all to share).

I did a few projects on the IBC 2001 a few years back. I found that transition fairly easy. I haven't used ASCE-7 yet, but will surely once Jan. comes along. The older versions were well written I thought.

I guess the new ones have lots of TYPOS....the UBC 97 had the same problems, and issued Eratta after Eratta and even flip flopped on code issues (not a mere typo) on certain things. It's is unfortunate.

Sounds like to me, there needs to be a professional editing company involved (or a new one) for syntax issues, but the technical stuff, I can't see it being done by anyone other than in-house.


On 6/7/07, Donald Bruckman <bruckmandesign(--nospam--at)> wrote:

I just started going through the IBC-2006 in anticipation of its use here in California next year.  So far, I am not impressed.  AT ALL.  From what I've looked at so far, the IBC is a rather sloppy document and surprisingly, in many areas, much more lax than UBC-97 ….  I haven't even gotten into the structural stuff and I see all kinds of poor phrasing and awkward syntax, errors of omission, unreferenced requirements and other stuff that will just make my life a living hell trying to interpret in unison with a B.O..  No wonder the State of California balked at this document the first go-around. 


I also see why you guys were complaining about cost.  Seems the IBC simply references an alphabet soup of other documents and simply says, "…shall comply with ASCE-7…" or AITC or ASTM or whatever.  Meanwhile, the State of CA has two pdf documents totaling over 300 pages of amendments.  Entire chapters are omitted and re-written.




From: Garner, Robert [mailto:rgarner(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 10:22 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: ASCE 7-05 Errors


ASCE Page 83, Section 7.7.1, Last Sentence: "This density shall also be used to determine h sub b by dividing p sub s by lambda."


p sub s is the sloped roof snow load.  They should also include the flat roof snow load, p sub f.


This apparently got by all those errata.


With all due respect, I still consider the errata excessive for a Design Code document.  And, yes, we strive for 100% accuracy in our office.  Errors are not treated lightly here.





Bob Garner, S.E.


R. Garner

Moffatt & Nichol

Tel.:  (619) 220-6050

Fax.: (619) 220-6055

e-mail: rgarner(--nospam--at)


The information contained in the e-Mail, including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from Moffatt & Nichol and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us.