Code Changes and Adoptions

[CBSE]

This week I spent some time looking at when all the updated codes would be out and am a bit frustrated with the code cycles. Take Oregon for instance:

Oregon plans to release the 2014 OSSC around July 1st. This edition will be based on the 2012 IBC, ASCE 7-10, ACI 318-11, ACI 530-11, 2012 NDS, etc. etc. etc. Looking at those codes (besides the NDS), most are slated for a new version this year, or early next year. Why in the world are states so far behind the code cycle? What if there are some major code changes in the 2015 IBC that aren't picked up in the 2014 OSSC, I will be referencing way outdated codes in Oregon for the next 4 years...doesn't make a bit of sense to me!

Question, if I purchase the latest codes, am I bound to follow the codes specified in the Oregon Structural Specialty Code, or can I use the most current version of whatever code is referenced (concrete, wood, steel, masonry)?

Also, from reading in ACI's webiste, the new edition of the ACI 318 looks to be a huge improvement.

 

[JAE]

Technically the adopted building code (IBC 2012 in your case) will out-reference all the other codes such as ASCE 7, NDS, AISC 360, etc.
In Chapter 35 of the IBC they list these references and their specific years. Those are the documents that you should follow under that particular adopted IBC code.

If there are newer releases of, say, ASCE 7, it is up to your own prudence as to whether you would also choose to use the later version. However, technically, you still would have to meet the older, referenced version as well.

 

[Ron]

Agree with JAE...

In Florida, we have a thoroughly screwed up code cycle. The 2013 Florida Building Code, which is based on the 2012 IBC, is not out yet. We are statutorily under the 2010 Florida Building Code with amendments.

In most jurisdictions, there is either an ordinance or statute that adopts a certain version of the code. In Florida, state law dictates the adoption date through the Florida Administrative Code, Rules for the Florida Building Commission, such as:

61G20-1.001 Florida Building Code Adopted.
(1) The Florida Building Code, 2010 Edition, as updated by the Florida Building Commission on – August 9, 2011, and amended by the Commission on August 7, 2012, incorporated herein by reference is hereby adopted as the building code for the State of Florida.

The interesting part of this is that the foregoing statement was not effective until August 2013!

Further, reference standards, as JAE noted, are usually made a part of the code by reference but are often included in their entirety as if contained within the code itself. Look at Chapter 1 of the IBC/FBC/Other States of similar style codes, to see the administrative provisions of the code (we usually skip that boring chapter!). Such provisions are actually important in that they dictate the use and applicability of the code. As an example, the Residential Code usually only applies to 1 and 2 family dwellings....so apartments and condos are not under the residential code, but the main building code as they are deemed to be "commercial construction", not residential construction.

Also, the standards referenced in the Code (ASCE 7 is a prime example) does not follow the same update cycle of the primary building code, so you are often using older versions of the standard as required by the code. Be careful with this because you want to stay within the standard of care of your practice and to move up or down in time with a referenced standard can take you outside the standard of care.

 

[CBSE]

It's just frustrating to see how unorganized (or at least it appears that way) our code writers and organizers are. It would be nice if they were all working concurrently. Oh well.

 

[XR250]

...it would be nice if they just quit updating the codes!

 

[JStephen]

One pet peeve I have is that two of those outdated standards referenced by ASCE 7 are in turn updated yearly. However, the updates are in the form of loose-leaf amendments which are inserted into the original document, so when you get through inserting the amendment, you no longer have an "original" version to look at.

 

[SrVaro]

My experience, most reviewers understand this. If a newer version has been issued they usually allow the use of the newer; ie ACI 318-14 would be okay even if the state code (via IBC) lists ACI 318-11. Also, since revisions are marked in the newer version, you should be able to tell if the section of 14 has been updated from 11. If not updated you are in compliance without any concerns.

 

[JAE]

SrVaro - I would amend your statement - technically you still MUST meet all the provisions of the adopted code...even if it is an older version. This isn't an opinion - but a simple legal fact that a jurisdiction will adopt a specific code. Never do they say "We hereby adopt the IBC 2006 but when other later versions come out go ahead and use them".

As I mentioned above - it's OK to use the newer codes if they offer you a more conservative approach compared with the adopted code. But if the newer code gives you a less conservative result you are technically violating the mandated code requirements.

One example of this is that some years ago California hesitated in adopting the "newer" UBC 1997 as the local SE's there had issues with the seismic provisions that ICBO had come up with. If an engineer had used the UBC 97 on a project where the local authorities hadn't yet agreed to adopt it - and something "fell down" then that engineer would have a hard time defending their decision. Just because a newer code is newer, doesn't mean it is acceptable, agreeable, or appropriate for every jurisdiction anywhere.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Hypothetically what if the new code addresses design deficiencies? Lets say some jurisdiction is way, way out of date using something like the UBC 1997 in a high-seismic region and the engineer is designing a moment frame lateral system. While the 2008 seismic design provisions of the 2009 IBC we're all used to these days are less conservative in some areas they address significant deficiencies in the seismic design of the day. What does one do if that's the case (which is likely extremely rare)? Does one adopt only the updated methodologies but not the conservative elements?

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.

 

[JStephen]

I've been seeing an internet headline proclaiming that some percentage of our nuclear reactors don't meet the latest seismic requirements. And I'm thinking, "Well duh, if they were built to a specified seismic level and you increase the level later, they likely won't meet it, will they?"

 

[JAE]

As I mentioned, you always have the choice to design more conservatively. But not less so than the governing code.
Codes are minimum standards.