"barely Code compliant"
"barely Code compliant"
(OP)
Just a quick question on my part. I see this and similar phrases thrown around on these forums fairly frequently, and always in a negative vein. My understanding of my job is to provide not only a safe design, but the most economical one. Oviously the first comes foremost. This usually means one or more parts of what I design are going to barely meet Code. I've designed several hundred things by now that barely met Code and have since been loaded to their full specified load, if not more (though in some of those cases I do believe that the Code load factors are overly conservative, but that is a different topic IMO).
At the same time, I have seen many posts where people have opined they are comfortable with 5% overstress on members which is not entirely Code compliant, but does meet standard pratice. I realise that this is partially due to engineers often being over conservative when arriving at loads.
So why do phrases like "barely Code compliant" have negative connatations?
At the same time, I have seen many posts where people have opined they are comfortable with 5% overstress on members which is not entirely Code compliant, but does meet standard pratice. I realise that this is partially due to engineers often being over conservative when arriving at loads.
So why do phrases like "barely Code compliant" have negative connatations?






RE: "barely Code compliant"
I'm not sure that they do; I don't recall seeing that phrase used here.
Perhaps more convincingly:
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/
RE: "barely Code compliant"
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=350261
RE: "barely Code compliant"
In some situations, it may be prudent to provide additional capacity if the anticipated load is likely to exceed design load or the member is likely to be subjected to unusual abuse during its service life, but normally structural members are designed to just meet the building code and no more.
If some conservatism is desired, it is probably better to increase the specified live load on the area, then design to code.
BA
RE: "barely Code compliant"
Just keep in mind that Mother Nature doesn't have the benefit of ANSYS and doesn't much give a damn about material testing reports.
Independent events are seldomly independent.
RE: "barely Code compliant"
I think it's open to interpretation.
If it means that they are designed to just comply with all code requirements, then there is nothing wrong with that.
If it means that the trusses will just take maximum unfactored code loads before failure, then they are grossly under-designed.
Or perhaps it means something between those two extremes.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/
RE: "barely Code compliant"
Most of any problems we had related to trusses at all were due to perpendicular shear load at the bearing points. Somebody's failure to provide sufficient bearing plate area for the truss, nothing directly related to the trusses themselves. Most problems (excessive deflections) were the result of HVAC contractors actually cutting out the truss' diagonal web members, so they could fit in their ducting work!!! Another from failure to secure against high wind loads by not installing hold-down straps ... and lastly, a tornado that ripped off one of the Pizza Hut roof tops and, strangely enough, deposited it relatively undamaged in the vacant lot across the street.
Failure due to code loads on roof trusses isn't high on my worry list. Increased snow & ice loading due to global climate change.... ya. I'd be worried about that one.
Independent events are seldomly independent.
RE: "barely Code compliant"
Because adverbs of degree are used judgementally, as if to impart the idea that the speaker does not quite approve of the condition, even though it might, technically, be adequate. It's a self-righteous, belittling tactic.
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
RE: "barely Code compliant"
RE: "barely Code compliant"
RE: "barely Code compliant"
I'd like to point out that if something collapses, then it was NOT code compliant, not "barely code compliant".
Secondly, the code is primarily a life safety code. There are some serviceability requriements, but not in depth. You can definately have something that's code compliant but doesn't work well. Pre-engineered metal buildings with a lot of deflection with brittle cladding or sheetrock walls attached comes to mind. There are many other examples.
I think as engineers it's our responsibility to not just use the code as a rote document. We need to apply judgement and if something we're designing needs to exceed code requirements to be in the clients best interest, or to meet the clients requirements (even if not explicitly stated "you didn't say the closet door needed to open") then we need to bring that to the attention of the client. Sure, the building won't kill them, but they won't get good use out of it either.
RE: "barely Code compliant"
Do we really want to go there?
Being "barely code compliant" is just another way of saying you have designed to the code minimum, which will change with the next code ass nature reveals itself, so any additions will have to be reinforced, meaning more $$$ spent by the owner in the future.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
RE: "barely Code compliant"
but, the problem is when you try to design 1.0005% of the Code, then have to finagle a way to "think" you are still safe when you see it really is 0.985 of the Code. Even when the thing is "probably" only going to see 0.67 of the design load anyway. But, will it?
Job is to get the piece designed and made so the fewest errors are likely and the most economical safety compliance can be established and maintained for the expected life of the building. But, those highway bridges that collapsed in CA under those 1970-1980 earthquakes? They were compliant with the Code as well, when they were built.
RE: "barely Code compliant"
RE: "barely Code compliant"
RE: "barely Code compliant"
I think the real problem is the word "barely". It doesn't sound nearly so bad if you remove that one.
Independent events are seldomly independent.
RE: "barely Code compliant"
It really depends on the application.
RE: "barely Code compliant"
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
RE: "barely Code compliant"
Independent events are seldomly independent.