ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
(OP)
The Florida Building Code (2001/2002 Revisions) references "ASCE 7" - thanks a lot. Are any of them 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 acceptable? Only the latest? What are most engineers using? Is there a consensus on this that I don't know about?
Same question - International Building Code.
Thanks
Same question - International Building Code.
Thanks






RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
IBC 2000, Chapter 35 "Referenced Standards" specifies ASCE 7-98
www.SlideRuleEra.net
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
In structural engineering it is very important (law) to use the current code incorporated by the governing code agency, whether its State, City, etc.
If in doubt contact the local (usually city) code official for the proper code reference.
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
SlideRule, you bring up a a very interesting point. I see in Chapter 35, it lists these standards and "the effective date". What exactly does an "effective date" mean? The obvious reading is that a referenced standard that had an "effective date" five years prior could have been used in conjunction with that building code for those five years prior as well, even if the building code from those years didn't list it yet- which implies usage is not limited to the year listed. The wording used in Chapter 35 doesn't specifically limit the usage to that year, and it's really not clear if that's the intent or not. If that is the intent, they probably need to actually state it somewhere.
By way of contrast, in thumbing through my ASME B&PV code, I find a table titled "Year of Acceptable Edition of Referenced Standards in This Division". Here, the intent is quite clear, to reference a particular year, no later, no earlier.
In my ASCE-7-02, Section 9.14.2.1 lists the ASME B&PV Code "Including Addenda Through 2000" as a concensus standard to be followed to the extent referenced. But the ASME code itself mandates when sections become effective (6 months after issuance of addenda, with annual addenda), and you simply don't have the option of using an older version, regardless of what version IBC or ASCE list in their references. I would be curious to know how many of the other references in Chapter 35 have similar provisions. Particularly in the case of something like a "Safety Code for Elevators", it would seem ill-advised to insist on an outdated version.
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
The original FBC 2004 referenced ASCE 7-98 despite in many other ways being identical to the IBC 2003 (which as pointed out references ASCE 7-02.)
The 2005 supplement to the FBC was just recently (within the past few months) approved. It is this supplement that revised the reference to ASCE 7-02.
http://www2.iccsafe.org/2004_florida_codes/
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
I'm finishing up CA work on a project in Florida using FBC 2001.
"The general rule is to always use the latest unless something specifically calls for particular version." - NOT a General rule in my book- that's dangerous in my opinion; especially if you have more than one engineer (experienced or not) working on the same project.
I would recommend NOT arbitrarily mixing and matching codes and standards because you're too lazy to follow the one referenced in the specs and CD's- and follow thru with associated references (for blatantly obvious reasons). Perfect example -> 1.4D+1.7L vs. 1.2D+1.6L - so a "smarty pants" engineer getting the loads for a load take-down would conviently use load combos from one code and the other "smarty pants" engineer designing the memebers would use strength reduction factors (knowingly, or not) from another. The scary and obvious part here is when they don't talk or document. The important aspect of following the governing code and referenced standards to a tee is that it covers you- and your colleagues; especially from yourselves. If you follow the code and version, you don't open up the chance to really screw up.
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
The flip side of this issue is that I have seen contract documents and design calculations referencing standards and building codes that were twenty five years or more out of date. You can go through some cash trying to keep up to date on these things, and if you don't need them often, it's easy to get behind.
While the original question asked about FBC & ASCE-7, I really do think that you'd run into problems of logical consistency trying to apply this all the way down the line with those references in Chapter 35. Where a code references standards, and those reference other standards, and those reference other standards, you lose a year or two at each layer, and at some point, something's got to give. (Does the ASCE-7 ever reference IBC, by the way? If so, it would be an older version than the one that referenced ASCE-7...) I see on the ICC website that you can submit requests for committee interpretations; this would be a good one for that.
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
Chapter 35 of the IBC (don't know about the FBC) directly references specific documents that have specific issue dates.
In section 102 of the IBC it states: "The codes and standards referenced in this code shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference. Where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply."
I don't think there's really any doubt or logical inconsistency involved when you use a required effective date standard referenced in Ch. 35. They should be used if a jurisdiction has adopted a specific code with a Chapter 35 included and using "other" standards with different effective dates than shown in Ch. 35 DOES result in logical inconsistencies.
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
Interesting too, is that this Supplement says "Where codes and standards are referenced in this Specification, the editions of the following listed adoption dates are intended" and includes a table of issue dates. That's the language that is missing in IBC.
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
What I've done in this circumstance is to analyze such structures with the methods available in both ASCE 7-02 and ACSE 7-05 and note on the plans that I've done so and applied the worst case results to the structure. I do the ASCE 7-02 analysis for the lawyers and the 7-05 analysis as an engineer.
I guess we're all para-legals now.
-Jack
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
I guess I don't see how a long string of references which appear to ultimately conflict somehow voids out all the highly specific references in Ch. 35.
Simply because they included AISC ASD (a very old - not updated steel spec) and ASD references - in a very limited extent - an older ACI code than the one found in Ch. 35, doesn't then logically mean that we can all assume that the dated references in Ch. 35 can be taken at leisure and we can pick and choose the standard that we want - or the even the latest standard.
There are many jurisdictions who don't always agree that simply because there's been updated research and new code concepts that those are necessarily "better" and should be used. I know that in California the 1997 UBC met with much resistance over its seismic criteria and many qualified structural engineers showed in journals and articles how some of its provisions were incorrect, or overly conservative.
So if a jurisdiction adopts a specific code, which specifically references other documents, then those specific references should be used.
The other thing to keep in mind here is that a standard or specification stands alone as a complete document. What I mean by this is, for example, that ACI 318-02 and ACI 318-05 are NOT simply different issues of the SAME specification. They are completely distinct and stand-alone specs. and should always be treated as such. To see 318-02 listed in Chapter 35 and then say - its just 318 and chapter 35 doesn't specifically say I have to use the 02 version is to muddle the fact that 318-02 IS the 02 version. The date is not an afterthought, its integral to the spec's identification.
I agree with your second half statement "unless something specifically calls for particular version" - I just think that Ch. 35 DOES specifically call for a specific version -despite examples of some stretched out references chains which seem to conflict.
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
On the other hand, as I've noted, ASME B&PV Code and AISC-ASD spell out very clearly that specific years of certain references are the ones to be used.
You mentioned that ACI 318-02 and ACI 318-05 are NOT simply different issues of the same specification. I notice on the cover of my ASCE 7-02, it says "Revision of ASCE 7-98". In the Abstract, it states "ASCE 7-02 is a revision of ASCE 7-98". However, these phrases are missing on the ASCE 7-05 version. (It does state "This revision of the standard began in 2003...") So there may be some confusion on the part of the writers themselves as to whether these are or aren't different issues of the same standard. I do see that ACI-318-05 "supersedes" ACI 318-02. "Supersede" is to render obsolete, inferior or outmoded, to make void, to make superflous or unnecessary". "The 2005 code revised the previous standard "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete.."" from the commentary.
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
Generally, the codes (specifically I'm talking about the IBC) have gotten a lot better about tightening up their references and coordinating between agencies, though, as you pointed out, you can chase down multiple references and find a seemingly logical conflict.
And yes, I'd say that in a general sense, ACI 318-05 is a revision to 318-02 - (standing on the shoulders of giants, etc.) but legally, technically, they are specific and different documents which shouldn't be flippantly interchanged...that's really my main point.
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion
RE: ASCE 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 Confusion