×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought
5

Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

(OP)
Background:
United States project, Texas, along the Gulf Coast.  A public works project for the local Municipality was started in 1999 and then "put on the shelf" by the Municipality (for various reasons unrelated to engineering that I will not get into) while the project was at a 70-80 % level of completion.  It was restarted in late 2000 with the Municipality demanding 100% (not final) submittal within a couple of months (very very little money for restart-up).  At the end of 2 months drawings were stamped 100% whether they were or not and submitted to Municipality for final review and comment.  The project was once again shelved after submittal.  Now in 3rd quarter of 2004 the project is once again re-starting, probably actually start in November (+/-).  We are to submit a proposal for re-starting and completing the project.  This would be fees associated with restarting a shelved project and does not include any original design fees (not that there is any money left.)  Initial phase of project is approx. 3 million dollars.  I'm purposely not giving out specific details, sorry.

My Question:
As the structural EOR I designed for the latest codes at the commencement of the project in 1999.  Codes used: local building code SBCCI 1997 (it just ref. the other codes), ASCE 7-95 (didn't have 1999), ACI 318-99 & 530-99, AISC-LRFD 2nd. Ed. (1995), and AISI-Cold formed steel design, 1996.  Would you estimate hours based on redesigning/checking original design for the latest design codes?  Or, would you assume the codes used at the time are relevant and no need to check for code difference?  I think all of the current codes are 2002 except the local code now IBC 2003.  IBC ref. the other aformentioned codes but no dates.

If the project was completed in 1999 and the local Municipality waited to start construction, I see no reason why they would come back to the engineer to verify design was still applicable.  I don't believe they are under any obligation to check with the engineers and I know of no requirement from the state board requiring that the latest codes be used in all designs.  But, to me it would be good engineering practice to verify code changes wouldn't affect the design, on the other hand would 5 years really make a difference?  You see where I'm going with this...baffling.
Thanks for your time.
VQ

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

2
You have to design the project for the code that is current at the time of submission for building permit.  The governing agency (city or county) reviews submissions relative to the currently active code, not some code applicable in the past.

So your fee should be based on a re-design / re-check of all relevent code provisions in the NEW code.

IBC 2003 DOES reference dates on the associated reference documents - see Chapter 35 in the IBC for the relevent editions of ACI 318, ASCE 7, etc.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

You have an professional obligation to check and re-design by the latest code. If the latest code requires larger member sizes, then you are obliged to indicate that on the construction documents. If the latest code requires smaller members, I may not change it since the cost of the change to the documents may exceed the potential construction savings.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

(OP)
jike,
Since I have a "professional obligation" to design by the latest code, do I go back to all my previous designs in my life and tell the owners that I have to check that previous designs meet the latest codes?  And if the latest codes mean larger beams is my design inadequate?  Who says I have an obligation to use the latest codes?  I guess the building codes as JAE pointed out but, I could see the municipality saying no to current codes to save money.

I have an obligation to provide my client a safe economical design that also protects me from the unknowns in construction and from the unknowns of this litigious society.

I know it sounds like I'm arguing jike but it's more a rationalization.  Does 5 years really change a design?  I look at 50 year old structures that have survived several hurricanes which makes me stop and think about codes and there 3 year cycles that they all seem to be going to.  It feels more like a fleecing by codes writers than a necessity.

JAE,
Thanks for pointing out ch. 35, I missed the obvious.
VQ

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

There is a decided difference between a building that exists versus one that is still being designed.  

Otherwise, you would logically be able to argue that you should be allowed to design to a code that existed 100 years ago, because you can find a building from that time that still stands.  That argument is completely fallacious.

The fact that the customer will incur additional cost because they were inept in managing the project is NOT your problem.  Had they completed the project on schedule, the structure would be grandfathered into the existing code.

And yes, 5 years can make a difference.  Just consider what was required prior to any number of building disasters and that required immediately afterwards.  


TTFN

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

Your obligation is only to the project that is still in the design phase, not to older projects that have been designed and built under previous "governing" codes. Your obligation is to design your current project by the current "governing" code, which may or may not be the "latest" code.

As JAE said, the Governing Building Code usually references the particular addition that you need to use for ACI, ASCE, etc.

I certainly think that the changes to the various codes over the years have affected the designs. A few of the ones that come to mind are ASCE 7 wind, ASCE snow drifting,  the 1/3 increase, the new load combinations, the masonry rebar laps per IBC, etc.

Compare the damage to structures designed and built in Florida before Hurricane Andrew and those after. How about Northridge? I am sure there are many other examples also.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

(OP)
Thanks for all you comments and taking the time to respond.  I'm sure everyone is busy and I appreciate the time you took.

The 50 year old building...bad bad example.  I'd never design to an old code.  Sorry for that one.  In a seismic area I see 5 years making a difference.  In wind design the big change is using the use of 3 second gust which has been around for several code versions.  The calculation of pressures is primarily the same but the wind speed maps have changed.

But, I don't consider 1 or 2 code revisions to be old and as you pointed out jike there are many municipal communities (building divisions) not using the latest codes.  If the latest version of a code was a must would not ACI, AISC, sate agencies, etc. require/insist engineers use the latest.

The question in my mind is, will a slightly older code version make a difference and cause failure and I can't see that it will.
I ask myself;
1)will the building fail by using slightly older code? NO
2)will it save the client money by staying with the older code and assuming the client says in writing to use the older codes? YES, in engineering fees

My goal is always to provide the client with a good safe economical design that will withstand the loads imposed and provide a good service life.  Ultimately I see no reason to ask the client to spend additional money because of a change in code in this area at this particular time and I haven't seen a valid reason to lead my to any other conclusion.

Yes there are advances in codes, yes there are disasters, and yes we try to meet those disasters with changes in codes but from a wind standpoint, I think the changes in design as a result of a hurricane like Andrew (Aug. 1992) in Florida are primarily design/construction detail changes following load paths and adequate connection/restraint design/check.

Am I a bad engineer for asking this question or having this opinion?  I hope not.
Thanks guys for your time.
VQ

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

In this situation I agree with VQ,  perhaps if you also place the applicable codes in the General Notes, it would help with future modifications to the structure and thus no confusion, while also allowing permit people (albeit at a late stage) to check if it is acceptable, thus if it comes back to the Owner, then there is a legitimate reason for redesign and checks.

Regards

VOD

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

When you submit your proposal you could state that your fee is based on the original design and codes and that review to the current codes would either need to be negotiated or you could give a fee as a supplement should your client elect to go with the review of the newer code versus the as-designed code.  Judging by your comments it sounds as if you are not sure what the relevant changes to the codes are and how (much) their changes affect your design?  Your client probably does not know either but they are looking to the professionals to tell them.

Ultimately you and we are in business to make money while at the same time ensuring the life and safety of the general public that utilize our products/structures.  You need to do some research to determine what impact the new code has on your design: either buy the new code(s) and review by chapter, and/or talk to your associates in other firms that have become familiar with the newer code.  If I was your client I would look more favorably on your services if you told me straight up that it would cost $x to review for the newer code and that you did anticipate what the impact the newer code requirements will have on the design; both from an engineer's fee and potentially construction costs.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

Code Compliant Design is "point in time" specific.  It is not retro-active unless more than a certain percentage of the project is to be revised, reconstructed or added.  That percentage is usually 25% but can vary by jurisdiction.  That only applies to projects that are being constructed or are already built.

As JAE said, you must design for current code and therefore must review old design and upgrade as necessary.  Also, don't be shy about asking for compensation for this.  You've been made to jump through hoops for this project and now it's time to stop giving away your services and ask for appropriate compensation.  If a lawyer were providing his services on a project that had this happen, you can bet he'd charge for all review, checking current statutes for applicability and any other legal stuff he could throw in.  AND HE'D GET IT!......I assume that since 1999 your rates have increased as well.  Make sure that gets covered!

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

(OP)
Some clarification.  It's a municipal client and they or an entity within governs the local codes.  If the client agrees to not update design to current local requirements they would likely have to do it in agreement with building code division.

Once again, why not maintain the original design codes?  Because the codes changed doesn't seem to be a valid reason to spend the money.  To design per the current governing codes is a nice linear and simple answer but I question my motives for picking the easy answer.  There is engineering judgment involved and I want to make a good valid and justified decision.  Is my design invalidated by the latest code just because it hasn't been built yet?  My answer to that is no.  So then how do I justify asking the client to pay me more money to update the design if I can't justify it with sound reasons.

Ron, I don't see a structural reason why I "must design for current code" as you stated.  If I started a design right now, I would use the current codes.  I have used valid codes and design procedures and as I stated above I can't see the design invalidated by an update in code.  You could throw liability into the mix but with no national code body requiring/demanding that I always use the latest code and knowing that in this application the design is structurally sound as is, I don't see the "must" justified.

I'll likely present 2 options to the client at current dollars.  Any design package would state design codes and dates on general notes sheets.  I have no doubt that my company does expect full compensation for having to pick-up this project years later, now will they get it that's another story.

Once again I can't stress enough my appreciation for everyone's input.
Thanks,
VQ

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

(OP)
Some how (user stupidity) I've put stars by IRstuff and Ron.  Not that you both didn't provide a "valuable post" but it was unintentional.  I just didn't want everyone else to feel left out.
VQ

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

I'm really having trouble following your reasoning.

The code changed.  Either there are massive revisions or there are not.  If not, then a simple review against the design will show that it is either compliant or not.  If not, you can offer the customer the option to upgrade or to leave it alone; your technical assessment of the criticality is part of the decision process.

If there are massive revisions, again, a review will determine whether or not your design is compliant.  Again, if it's not, then you need to either show that revisions are irrelevant and/or offer your customer the option to upgrade.  Again, your assessment of the criticality is crucial to the decision process.

You seem to picking the position of making the customer's decision a fait accompli, by blowing off the new code as irrelevant.

It seems to me, that as the EOR, you have a public duty to perform the due diligence work to show that the design is either compliant to the current code or not and to allow the customer the option to decline the upgrade.

TTFN

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

IRstuff -
I agree that a review is warranted in regards to compliance - but with new codes, in structural design these days, a simple review isn't really possible to know the full extent of what redesign is required.  It many times takes at least a moderate effort in calculations to "get into" the design and determine what kind of design effort is required.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

Since we know that the code is changed, the restart effort should include the cost of the review, plus the cost of scoping any extra design effort.  

The delta for the added scope, if any, would then need to be approved by the customer, but, he should have the final decision as to cough up extra money if the delta scope is extremely large.

TTFN

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

(OP)
The question is, "is a design based on current codes necessary for this situation?"  If this specific client who controls the local design codes, chooses not to require the design to be updated to current codes, why should I require them to do so?  As I stated before, I'll give the client 2 cost options; design as is 2) updated code design.

As JAE pointed out it's just not a simple code review.  I estimate having to basically redesign 1 building to determine if the codes (ASCE 7-wind, ACI 318-concrete, ACI 530-masonry, AISC-LRFD-steel, and AISI-Cold formed Steel) will cause design changes of any significance.  Likely 40+ hours of proposal time to identify effects of code.  It's not practical to be able give the actual affects of the code changes to the client at this point.  I would guess that to redesign for current codes, I'm asking the client to spend $40,000 vs. $20,000 if I don't update (approx. but in that order of magnitude) if not more.  

When I look at that, I ask myself what did the client really receive for their money?  Once again, the buildings will not fall in a hurricane based on the initial design codes which are in no way invalid.  So what the client got was a design by current codes, which will not fall either, at an additional cost of $20k (or what ever the additional cost is).  I can't see asking the client to spend money that I myself would not spend.

I in no way "blow off" codes as irrelevant.  I don't mean to give you that impression.  It's the relevancy of a code change I question.  As a structural engineer in this business I know that there are few times when significant changes are made that actually affects the outcome of a design.  Not to say codes changes never affect the design, they do.  Then we could discuss how changes are made in codes by committees and people of varying personnel opinions.  But that's another thread.

Once again, I see a lot of opinions that the updates should happen but no factual evidence as to why.  No references to code authorities demanding current versions of codes be used.  No mention in local codes that as soon as an updated design code is avaliable it should be incorporated in all designs.  As you can tell, I don't go along with the flow.  I need sound reasoning for why.

I appreciate the availability of a message board such as this one to expose myself to varying opinions.
Thanks to all
VQ

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

(OP)
IRstuff,
I was in the middle of typing when your additional comments came.  I agree that all those costs should be built into the proposal and are good points.
Thanks
VQ

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

VQ...if the standard of care for your area is to design to the current code (which it probably is), and the municipality decides it does not want you to design to current code for its own convenience, I think it is necessary that you document such in a letter to the authority that clearly outlines the situation.  In some jurisdictions, this constitutes overriding an engineering judgment by (perhaps) unqualified lay persons, which often requires public documentation on your part that your judgment has been overruled and you will not take responsibility for that decision.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

The question of relevancy is not germane to your specific situation.  The codes are ratified by the issuing authority, which, PRESUMABLY, have already gone through a review process to incorporate relevant changes.  If you wish to debate the relevancy of the changes, then you should join the committee responsible for the code and directly participate in the change making process.  

What appears "irrelevant" to you, NOW, may be VERY relevant on a different project or to a different user.

TTFN

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

And another shade on what IRstuff just stated:

VQ - your statement - "If this specific client who controls the local design codes, chooses not to require the design to be updated to current codes..." is not valid in the US in most cases as the client usually does NOT control the local design codes.

The client usually has no say whatever in what code is applicable as this is usually the domain of the city, county or state.  I would guess this is true for many other countries as well.

So the client is turning to the engineer to obtain (for his money) a set of construction documents that MEET the current code so that a building permit can be obtained.

Whether the design differences between the codes makes for a more or less safe structure is really irrelevent.  The issue is that the engineer is bound legally to meet the current code, period.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

(OP)
Ron,
I agree, the Client will have to release the Company from liability which will likely help the client make the decision.

IRstuff,
Point taken about codes, that was somewhat of a cheap shot at people working hard to develope and maintain them.  I was not sure what you meant by your last sentence.

JAE,
Thank you!  You used the phrase "bound legally to meet the current code".  This means you can tell me who I'm leagally bound to.  The Clinet is one of those entities you mentioned and they control the codes and have the power to decide if they want the design to the lesser.  The state board of engineers rules state:

"The engineer shall endeavor to meet all of the applicable professional practice requirements of federal, state and local statutes, codes regulations, rules or ordinances in the performance of engineering services."

I does not state "latest" or "current" statutes, codes regulations, rules or ordinances because each local entity adopts their code of choice and decides if and when they will adopt a new code.  I can gaurantee you that in the state of Texas there are many local entites using various codes.  So who am I legally bound too?

I received a package from a Fabricator yesterday for the design of a truss tower.  It's a 2004 federal project and the design specifications require the tower to be designed to ASCE 7-98 even thought ASCE 7-02 is the latest.  Which all goes back to my point that a previous code does not become irrelevant just because a newer code is out which takes me back to what started this thread; structurally the project started in 1999 per those current goes are still structurally sound and there is no structural reason to update the code, possibly a liability reason but not structural.

Your "legal" comment JAE reminded me that I can submit this issue to the engineering board for interpretation or response.  If anyone's interested, I'll let you know their response.  They aren't the quickest thought so may need to wait a bit.

I do appreciate everyones opinion and time.
Thanks, VQ

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

Although ASCE 7 is referenced by various codes it is not a code.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

VQ...you are bound to your client to provide the design according to the applicable code (contractual standard of care liability) and to the public at large (engineering license liability), even though a municipality might use a different code than its neighboring municipality.  This is relatively common.

Codes are adopted by municipalities or other govering bodies by statute or ordinance.  It varies from location to location.  The "codes" we ascribe to are model codes with no legal authority until adopted at a local or state level.  In most cases, due to laziness, lack of resources, or ignorance on the part of the governing body, the model code is adopted in its entirety without supplement.  So in many locations you will see that IBC 2000 or some other model code has been adopted as its building code.  Unless directed by the state governments, municipalities are free to adopt any code they see fit.  As you can also see, this requires "revisiting" by the governing body to adopt code updates and revisions.  I can't tell you how many times I've started a design or investigation assuming current editions of the applicable code, only to find that the municipality was still working from an old version of the code without updates.

Sorry JAE...didn't mean to jump into your reply...please expand.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

Well said - just one thing I might add is that VQ's reference to the "owner controlling the code" DOES apply to some cases such as the Federal Gov't, Military, etc. where they can essentially dictate their own provisions as the local cities, etc. have no jurisdiction.

Also, agencies such as the National Park Service and the US Postal Service have many or most of their properties on federal land as well and can specify whatever they want.  Most cases, they stick to the local adopted codes anyway.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

Do you need codes?

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

Just a ? beyond design - if the design was already tendered, the contractor builds to the code at the time of tender - if it is insisted that a later code be implemented, then he would be in a position of contract variation.  Yes?

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

IMHO, the Contractor builds to the plans and specifications prepared by the Designer of Record (DOR). I really don't think it is the Contractor's duty to interpret the codes.  If a change in the adopted code occures and is required to be implemented in the work, the Contractor must be notified by the DOR in the form of a Change Order Request or Directive.  

Also, as I think was mentioned above by others, the DOR prepares his plans and specifications to meet the ADOPTED code, not necessarily the latest version.  Only the code version ADOPTED by the municipality is the legally binding code for the project.  I believe that the use of any newer version would have to be approved by the code adopting authority before including it in the project.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

Unless there's a "most recent version" provision.  I'm not sure exactly how that works for design codes, but for construction codes that's most recent version at time of contract letting.

Hg

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

HgTX:

Just a couple of comments:

I've seen the "most recent version" requirement used quite often and is mainly for material or industry codes like ASTM or ACI etc.  I thought we were talking about building codes adopted by a municipality rather than industry codes. It makes quite a difference in the discussion.

I've always thought the "most recent version" requirement in a specification was an arbitrary CYA provision put in by specification writers that didn't take the time to their research.  Why should a contractor be held to a standard the the designer hasn't taken the time to include in his specification?  If you want the "most recent version" of a material or industrial standard to control, then get it and use its provisions in the specification.  

I just think the specs should be specific to the job and written clearly and completely.  The Owner gets a better job, a better price and there are fewer ambiguities to fight over during the course of the project.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

Agree - there are numerous times we've reviewed other engineer's documents and noted the "most recent edition" phrase.  In most cases, when we point out that they are violating the exact code they are referencing, they remove the phrases and state "the edition as referenced by the governing code"....i.e. chapter 35 in the IBC.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

We use it but not for Code references.  We use it because many of our master specifications have a list of ASTM sections in them.  It's almost impossible to do the research for every project to see which of these have been updated.  However, if we don't use the latest ASTM, we might be exposed to some liability if the update significantly revises the section.  Plus, we've had contractors say that they can't buy some widget to a previous revision, now they're not available.  So to cover ourselves we just state to use the latest revision.  The joke is we don't even have the latest revision.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

JedClampett:

You just made my point, CYA!  If the designer finds it NEARLY impossible to keep up, and he is supposed to know what he is specifing and wants in the project, how can the contractor be expected to keep up?

I'm not really sure what the answer is, but I think there is ALMOST more liability with the statement "most recent version" without knowing what it is, as to leave it out.

If you really know your specification and what it requires, I think you are better off and the job is better off.  How many times, when a problem comes up, do we scramble to order the "most recent version"?

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

But you don't have to keep up - simply refer to Chapter 35 in the IBC (or whatever code you use) and the entire ASTM, ASCE, AISC, ACI, etc. references are listed there.  You can have a global statement saying all references shall be per Chapter 35 unless noted otherwise.

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

IBC, which publication year?  They're gonna revise it sometime, and maybe even renumber the chapters.  How can you be sure you've kept up?

If it's okay to say "latest available" for ASTM (which can change several times a year), why would that same mechanism not work for any other referenced standard?

We have a 1000-page book of standard specifications containing references to ASTM, AWS, federal law, numerous internal specifications, etc.  There's simply no way to keep on top of all that from a document management standpoint--especially with projects sometimes getting delayed for months or years.  On the other hand, for each contractor and supplier to look up which editions apply to the specific job at hand at the specific time at hand is not at all unreasonable.  

We keep previous editions of the internal specs available so that when work begins, they can still go back to whatever was in place when they bid.  We also hang onto past editions of ASTM, etc., although what happens in the shops usually is that they'll just work to the latest edition available at time of work for all jobs, which we encourage--neither we nor they want to deal with different standards for different simultaneous jobs.

But those are construction and materials specs.  The rules and practicalities might be completely different for design.

Hg

RE: Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought

ASTM is a specification for a particular material and is designated in the IBC editions under specific years.  Technically you HAVE to keep up in that the language, logic, and order of your plans and specifications should be consistent with the applicable code for that particular project, so yes,.... you have to adjust your specs to account for different codes.

We have specifications where we designate the ASTM number, or the ACI number WITHOUT the year attached and then state elsewhere that you must use the appropriate edition of that ASTM spec as indicated in the building code.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources