The Reasons We Have Codes
The Reasons We Have Codes
(OP)
For all the griping we do, it's good to have a historical reminder that our work isn't arbitrary and has a reason.
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS Come Join Us!Are you an
Engineering professional? Join Eng-Tips Forums!
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. Posting GuidelinesJobs |
The Reasons We Have Codes
|
The Reasons We Have CodesThe Reasons We Have Codes(OP)
For all the griping we do, it's good to have a historical reminder that our work isn't arbitrary and has a reason.
Red Flag SubmittedThank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts. Reply To This ThreadPosting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! |
ResourcesThe world has changed considerably since the 1980s, when CAD first started displacing drafting tables. Download Now
Prototyping has always been a critical part of product development. Download Now
As the cloud is increasingly adopted for product development, questions remain as to just how cloud software tools compare to on-premise solutions. Download Now
Engineering-centric businesses face a number of challenges today, but unmanageable design and change processes don’t need to be counted among them. Download Now
|
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Grover Shoe factory disaster
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
And when was the last time you heard of a boiler exploding?
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
I wonder how that regulation would have fell in the latest nonsensical plan to remove 2 regulations for every new one and prohibit any new regulations after 2018.
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Absolutely, and that'll bring back stage 3 smog alerts in LA, which was common back in the 1970s.
Every major city in China is mired in lung-damaging smog. Why? Because there's ZERO regulation and therefore ZERO compliance to anything but making money. What does it matter if 20 million people die early deaths, there's still another billion.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
But regulation to collect cow farts is an overburden and wasteful, besides increasing the cost of food.
In the electric industry, having regulation is also necessary because of a lack of understanding of electricity, and safety of the consumer who would be unable to inspect the wires once installed in the walls of a building. I think the same thing could be said of other building services, like water, gas, and wastewater.
But regulations in the EU on the size of an oven is too much.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Literally yesterday...
http://www.delcotimes.com/general-news/20170130/ss...
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Before ASME, boiler explosions leveled buildings.
That one appears to have an intentionally weak wall to blow out.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
On the higher voltages there is less regulation on wire size. But that maybe because it is expected to be engineered, rather than designed by an installer.
At transmission voltages, we are required to keep track of equipment ratings, and develop a method of rating non-rated equipment, per FERC/NERC regulations.
This is a little different case, in that FERC/NERC seem to think the power grid belongs to the US government. Much different than public safety.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
I think other similar US states and countries probably have similar stories.
Also a short slide show from NCEES about history of licensure in the US: http://www.aaes.org/sites/default/files/2012_NAE_C...
Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Is it, though? Ovens tend to conform to a few standard sizes so that they fit into cabinets and countertops. One would think that a budding oven manufacturer would want to know what sizes to build and not have to waste time and money going to the local Home Depot or Best Buy to measure them there. So, if there were a regulation, it would mostly conform to existing marketed sizes of ovens, and would not be a burden, per se, since the manufacturer has a vested interest in building an oven that fits the market.
Nevertheless, the EU regulations are not about sizing, but about energy labeling:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/docum...
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Dik
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Do you want to live in a world without laws as well? The world functioned for millenia without codified laws as well. Codes are the laws for building and making things. They allow me to go to any hardware store and buy a fitting, knowing that it'll fit my plumbing, and without my having to make my own.
Otherwise chaos and BS products will abound. I got a package of AAA batteries, or so the labels claimed, but they were 20 mils shorter than what they should have been, making them useless in almost all equipment that I could possibly use them in. That would be the norm without codes and standards.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=402006
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
I can't think of a good example I know of which would illustrate an "Unnecessary" complex phrase in a code. Do you have an example you're thinking of? Usually, if I read a clause no more than twice, I get it. OK maybe 3 or 4 times if it's in Spanish. Tax and legal codes, that's another story, but also another web site.
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
What parts of 318 appear to be unnecessarily complex? It does include a lot more than I first remember in 1975. Before didn't you have to buy the commentary separately. Now it's included. And a lot of appendicies on alternate design methods that I don't seem to remember from before.
The pipeline design codes have probably changed far more over the years. Now they include offshore pipelines. I wouldn't say unnecessarily, even though the design of an offshore pipeline then and now wouldn't be all that different. Just now they also define minimum requirements for offshore pipelines. Before we just knew we had to put in a cathodic protection system. Today they want to tell us that it is a minimum requirement. Seems logical since the petroleum pipeline companies layed off a lot of experienced engineers in the 80s and just hire engineering companies, most not with a lot of pipeline experience, to do that these days. Codes have to expand to include new systems, new methods, new materials. Of course they will become more complex, even though they may not actually change a lot of basic design practice. I wouldn't want someone with a 1963 code designing a 787, or wiring a solar rooftop sytem today either.
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
You are right that there are a lot of things that require design today that didn't exist before. But "the more things change, the more they stay the same". I don't know who said that.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
While not gruesome, the image may be disturbing to some, so I attached it instead of hotlinking.
Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
You can edit it, can you not?
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Ponder "UL testing".
As time went on, disasters occurred which affected voters more than insurance companies and the politicians became involved.
Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Waross, an example please that demonstrates your contention of regulation for the sake of regulation.
The insurance companies couldn't handle what was happening with all the boiler explosions going on. Losses, losses, losses. They obviously couldn't charge rates that would put their customers out of business. Insuance companies paid the owners, who attempted to pay $100 for killing the only breadwinner of the household. The people demanded safety standards be enacted. Industry was not responsible enough to police itself... as always. Plain and simple.
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
What people have to recognize is the larger agenda of the heavy political hitters. If they can smear a stink on some regulations, pretty soon, they can have no regulations.
In Phoenix, not that long ago, there was some restaurant that wanted to remodel or expand or something. The owner didn't get permits and was stopped. This was an example of; "government gone wild." A "job killer." "The little guy getting pounded into the ground!" So let's get rid of permits!!
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
The legislation quietly went away before the deadline. It would have indirectly caused more pollution than it eliminated.
Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/08/24/california-zero...
As it now stands, the official goal is to have 1 million ZEV's (Zero Emission Vehicles) on California highways by 2025. Currently there are about 250,000 ZEV's registered in the state and at the current rate of adoption, it appears that the goal of 1 million by 2025 will be easily met.
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
re complex codes
To pile on with what Hokie said, the 1997 UBC has 2 pages of text and 2 pages of tables for wind loads. ASCE 7-05 has a 10 page of text and 49 pages of tables and figures in 1 chapter for wind loads. Since people complained that the wind code is too complex, ASCE 7-10, is "simplified" with 6 chapters for wind loads
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
STF
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
wannabe, I can symphasize with that "windy" code. Thankfully it worked when people complained and it was pared down. Maybe more complaints are in order.
I'm not saying problems don't exist. In fact I feel that some of these organizations that write codes were originally very necessary, however today they may be doing so mainly to fund a lot of their own "research". I meant "justify their own existance". Especially when the difference between issues is minor. If codes and standards were made freely available on the internet, there would be a lot less of them. The federal law in the USA is that if a code is a US Gov design requirement, it must be made freely available. For example, ASME B31.4 (pipeline design code) 2002 edition is referenced in the CFRs, therefore that 2002 edition is made freely available at the law.resource.org website. https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/002/asme.b... Even though there have been a few revisions since 2002, there is no legal requirement to use any edition other than 2002. That helps a bit not having to buy new codes every couple years or so.
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Not that all the codes should be that way, but maybe to lessen the number of codes in the public domain.
Maybe like not paying your medical clams for an auto accident if you were not wearing seatbelts. Instead of making the police stop cars to see than everyone is wearing them.
Sort of conditional insurance, for only people who follow the rules. Let people do stupid things on there own nickle.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Of course, for fossils like me, who do everything they can by hand, oh well.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Code enforcement would only happen by litigation, which is costly, and would come out of the insurance companies' pockets, while in the current approach, code enforcement is by law and enforced by someone else who doesn't cost the insurance companies any money.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Ever heard of Factory Mutual? They essentially created a lot of "rules" or code provisions for their clients to follow.
Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
But really you think everything needs to be a law? Why don't you endorse having cars inspected removal of airbags, and tire wear, and while at it inspect the whole car for rust.
That's the problem, we want government to do what it is not that good at doing.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Seriously? Industry is really good at not doing anything unless prodded by forces greater than them. The only exception I can readily think of is IIS' safety ratings for cars, where the insurance industry needed to rein in car damage repair bills, and created a surrogate that could bully-pulpit automakers into building safer cars, but that's only because the insurance industry had a huge profit motive to get it accomplished. The automakers would have never done that on their own, even with public pressure.
> Auto: no seat belts until required by law
> Auto: no desire for better mileage until CAFE standards -- if not for the CAFE standards, we'd be using about 2x the oil we currently do.
> Smog: no abatement until Clean Act, for both autos and factories
> Beef: butchering obviously sick animals and shipping for human consumption
> Beef: feeding possibly CJD-infected meat to cows
> Supermarkets: relabeling expired meat as "fresh"
> Canning: no limit on bug parts in canned food
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Was it 1956 that was remembered as the year Ford sold safety and everyone else sold cars?
It was sometime in the fifties.
The general public does not often willingly spend money on safer products.
Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
There are currently one or two little vehicles (maybe more) on the market that have more than two wheels, but still try to qualify as motorcycles for government standards. Of course, if you don't have to comply with any crash test, seat belt, or airbag requirements, your vehicle gets cheaper and lighter and faster, etc. But the point is, that people WILL buy the things, the safety really doesn't matter.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Do you know how hard it is to find a new car with an internal roll cage, manual transmission, manual steering, and little or no electronic crap?
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
How has that ever been different? Did Henry Ford allow people to customize their brand new cars? Everything you buy is built on someone else's concept of what the market wants.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
More, poorly designed regulation.
The former is very very rare but does exist.
Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Back in my days working in 'hard engineering' (before I got involved in selling and supporting software) the company I worked for developed and manufactured commercial processing equipment for the food and chemical industries. My division, where I worked in R&D as a design and eventually as a project engineer, supplied automated production lines to large bakery operations. Many of our larger pieces of machinery, some as large as a small house, had to have access to the top or 'roof' area of those machines so as to maintain and service such things as exhaust fans as well as gas and steam piping. Now the regulations involving the design and fabrication of an access/inspection platform was not that problematic since such requirements as proper handrails and toe-boards could generally be incorporated into the structural members of the machine without a lot of extra cost or effort. However, when it came to the ladder used to actually reach the access/inspection platform, that was another matter altogether. For awhile there, the requirements got to be so onerous that we started to leave off integrated ladders and simply told our customers to supply their own since they needed only occasional access to the top of these machines.
Well this lasted just long enough for our lawyers to inform us that if indeed a customer utilized a 'non-approved' ladder to access an area where it was necessary to maintain and service our equipment and an employee was injured, we could be held liable for NOT providing a safe way of accessing the machine. Therefore, in the long run, it was cheaper for us to provide a ladder which complied with all of the relevant safety requirements, even if it added to the cost of the machine, since that would put the onus on the customer if one of his employees was injured since we had provided all of the safety features required by OHSA and so it must have been the individual involved who was at fault.
The other OSHA regulation which we constantly did battle with was maximum noise levels. In fact, my last couple of years working there was spent mostly modifying existing designs to reduce/control excessive noise from such items as exhaust fans, blowers, hydraulic pumps, etc.
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
I saw TV program on weird Washington stories. There was a strip club taken over by the government from someone who probably did not pay their taxes. Employee regulations kicked in, and they installed a ramp up to the stage so that it could be accessed by disabled strippers.
--
JHG
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
It's probably only because of OSHA noise suppression regulations that I can still hear anything today.
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
No doubt we need to be vigilant, but as with police and fire, they are a necessary cost of doing business and living a relatively long life. If we got rid of the EPA, our air would look like that of China's, where you won't be able to see the 2nd row of houses across the street, and you certainly won't be able to see GM.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
I have spent a career fighting the stupidity and incompetent of management who had Victorian attitudes to safety and adherence to regulations etc.
At Christmas I was given by a friend a book on the history of railways - in the UK.
Interesting that the risk rates of people (men) working in railway shunting yards up to the 1960's gave a life expectancy similar on that of British soldiers in world war 2, and we thought THAT was dangerous!
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
In what universe is it OK to pay someone for advice and they don't act in your best interest? There is no other industry where that won't get you in trouble.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
What other industry? Hummmm. Just a minute. Let me think. Coming. Almost.
I got it!!! .... LAWYERING.
NOoooooooo! I'm wrong! It's politicing!
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
If you hire a financial advisor that works for a bank or broker, then you are not actually hiring them, as they are employed already.
And if you hire them on the cheep, then you get what you pay for.
It's also like asking an insurance agent how much insurance do you need.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Cranky, technically you don't hire the real estate agent, if you're the one buying. Not that it helps. It is like a massive, tremendously yuge conflict of interest.
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Here's the anti-ASCE 7 statement by Jim DeStafano
http://www.structuremag.org/?p=10989
And the rebuttal by Ronald Hamburger
http://www.structuremag.org/?p=10987
So from this do you gather that ASCE 7 is too big, to onerous, and simply the wrong way to help engineers....
Or is the code there to provide as much information as possible to the engineer to make engineering better....
You be the judge!!
Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
As with constitutional law, what is "settled" to one party is often highly disputed to another. The amount of work involved in getting a major revision passed through all the stakeholders is typically non-trivial, so if someone thinks that changes are made willy-nilly, they should volunteer to be part of the process and see, first-hand, why no substantive changes are ever passed without dissension.
I think that practicing engineers too often assume that everything in the code is so obvious that there can't possibly any need for expansion or clarification. However, when one peruses postings on this site, it's pretty obvious that what's obvious to some is murkier than ink to others.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
A few thoughts on your questions:
Does anyone know exactly why was it changed? What was the objective. Was the objective achieved?
Since ANSI A58.1, this document that specifies loads for buildings has morphed into ASCE 7 and there have been numerous versions - 98, 02, 05, 10, and now 16. Each time there have been changes to the specified loads (live, snow, wind, seismic, and several others) that appear to be the result of continuing study, research and lessons learned which resulted in more prescriptions of how an engineer can determine what proper loading to apply to their structure. So in a sense, it is a toolbox of sorts with a LOT of information provided.
The concern here in the debate articles I linked to revolves around the theory of how an engineer is either helped or burdened by such voluminous amounts of information. Is it truly information or is it just a lot of burdensome rules to follow that could be replaced by a simpler system.
Why do you use the latest version of ASCE 7? Apparently it is not even referenced in a building code yet.
Wherever a building or structure is located there is most likely an applicable, enforceable building code that will reference out to ASCE 7 and the particular version (i.e. IBC 2012 references ASCE 7-10).
So you shouldn't just automatically use the latest ASCE 7 but rather see which version is reference by the applicable code. ASCE 7-16 will be referenced by IBC 2018 so if and when this code is adopted then 7-16 would be used.
Is there some legal requirement to use the hot off the press version, or is it just "practice"?
The only possible use of a "hot-off-the-press version is that it reflects the latest state-of-the-art knowledge and an engineer can certainly take this into account when designing. The applicable code will enforce MINIMUM standards (i.e. minimum loads) so if the later version suggests that a higher level of load is more accurate, an engineer is free to use their judgement and perhaps use the higher load even though the applicable code technically doesn't require it. But if the newer version of ASCE 7 allows a lower load, then technically you may not want to go below the applicable code provisions.
Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
That neglects an equally important dictum; that a structure should be built in a cost-effective manner. Simplification tends to cause design loads to increase, thereby increasing the cost of construction where something less expensive would fully meet the design requirements for a given locale and conditions. If snow loads are never a problem, then the extra strength required to handle them is unnecessary and costs the builder and owner more than is required.
To say that a code should be simpler is to drive the design to worst-case design, since a lower design point would obviously be insufficient to hnald all possible cases. Worst-case design is very much an old-school concept; it's simple, but brute-force and inefficient. Brutalism meets certain design criteria, but the Crystal Cathedral could not exist in a brutalistic design universe.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
It's hard to argue against accuracy. Yes, our researchers are providing the industry with more accurate science. This research leads to more complex (but more accurate) procedures, which then become adopted into newer versions of codes. The codes grow and grow. This doesn't surprise me after all, who is against being accurate?
We should, to a point. An engineer's job isn't to be accurate -- it's to make decisions. And lots of them.
Engineers need to make countless decisions on a single project, let alone their careers. Should the wall be 18" or 24" thick? What's my load path? Will this material selection satisfy the fire provisions of the code? Is my edge of slab 1'-6" or 1'-10" along this column line? Do I have enough budget? Do I have enough time?
Experts have learned how to make decisions. Sometimes, you need to run a thorough and time consuming analysis. Other times, you need to discuss the issue with several peers, offer assessments, solicit feedback and use that perspective to decide. But most times, you just need to rely your gut and keep moving.
"Expertise" is shorthand for "my intuition and memory have been calibrated by so many years of conscious thought and experience that it's all one system, working together." That's powerful stuff. Our subconscious is where our real horsepower really lies...and it takes time and effort to build a root network into it.
We need to value what it means to be an expert. It's our calibrated intuition. It's our ability to make decisions. It's our ability to then communicate those decisions to a wide audience. It's not our ability to compute accurate answers. Heck, that's what computers do.
So every time we uproot our previous understanding in a favor of new, marginally more-accurate ones -- it costs us something. We can't rely on our intuition while we are reprogramming it with the new understanding. That takes time and effort. Meanwhile, our ability to quickly make decisions is short circuited -- and projects, clients, and our bottom lines suffer.
Codes are here to protect the public -- what's the best way to do it? Do you allow engineers to nurture their expertise based upon their current understanding so they can deploy it to make thousands of thoughtful decisions on thousands of projects that affect thousands of lives each day? Or do you force the entire profession to unlearn and relearn by tinkering with the codes so it takes a dozen pages to calculate a wind pressure of 24.31 psf when one page that yields 25 psf would lead to the same decision?
Everything in life is a trade off. My gut tells me that we should argue against accuracy more than we have been. Expertise is valuable.
"We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us." -WSC
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
I would tend to use experience in lieu of calculated wind loads if possible. For example, I generally don't do much actual mathematics for a low pressure, small diameter, buried, steel pipe operating at typical ambient temperatures, simply because I know MY resulting design will be more than the minimum requirements of the code, but not excessively so. I would not do a pipe stress analysis to verify that conclusion, simply because I know that a simple note to the design documentation stating that my professional opinion as an experienced, registered engineer is all that was required and that is all that is legally needed in my state to show that it is sufficiently verified.
Are you still allowed to do that?
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
In the structural world (or at least my niche, major bridge demolition), yes and no.
We're increasingly coming across owner's agencies who are requiring "extraneous" analyses as part of their approval process -- checks that we have deemed through experience, observation, familarity with the project, (etc) to not be applicable or to affect the design.
Most often, when we dig into it, we find that the requirement is not being driven by the agency themselves, but a consultant who has been brought on to review our plan. Ironically, even though we are also finding that owners are requiring more and more specific experience to be the EOR on these projects (which works for us, we have it), the review consultants often have little or no relevant experience. I suspect they are chosen more on the basis of having an existing relationship with the owner.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
If not, sometimes the hardest decision you have to make is who not to work for.
Reaction to change doesn't stop it
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
"Faultless Healthcare Linen's chief operating officer, Mark Spence, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch the three victims there were new hires who were filling out paperwork when the boiler came crashing down on them, killing two and injuring the third."
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/3-dead-4-...
Keith Cress
kcress - http://www.flaminsystems.com
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
In 2008 a seat belt and an airbag and a crumple zone in my compact car all functioned as intended and saved my life.
General Motors fought mandatory airbag laws in DC for 15 years. For this reason (and others) I will never purchase a GM product.
"If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to find time to repair it?"
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
STF
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
BP's on my boycott list (since 2004).
Amazon (since yesterday).
Richard Feynman's Problem Solving Algorithm
1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
That might well be every car company. Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed" covers some of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
Ford has had issues with Pinto and Bronco, at the least.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Richard Feynman's Problem Solving Algorithm
1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
But look where they are now.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
...that I bought two weeks before we got married (which BTW was 50 years ago this past Saturday) because my future (and present) wife refused to go an our honeymoon on the back of a motorcycle. BTW, it came with front seat lap belts.
Our second AMC vehicle was a 1968 Javelin...
...which we had while I was in college and which I used when racing in road-rally's (I was always the navigator, but my driver and I alternated cars when we raced).
And our last AMC product was a 1973 Matador...
...which was the first car we had with AC and an automatic. And it was a hot-rod, with a 360 cubic inch V8, four-barrel carburetor and duel exhaust. This was also the first car we drove cross-country (Michigan to Washington State).
I replaced it in 1978 with a Ford E-150 cargo van, which I converted into a basic RV configuration since we did a lot of long-distance vacation road trips. By then my wife was driving a Mercury Cougar.
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
What about the AMC pacer?
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
Richard Feynman's Problem Solving Algorithm
1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
I can remember when the car companies said that requiring seat belts in cars and padded dashboards was needless government interference.
We've gone full circle now.
Richard Feynman's Problem Solving Algorithm
1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Motors
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
RE: The Reasons We Have Codes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ford-focus-chi...
John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without