Ontario Building Code next edition 1

[ajk1]

Does anyone know the date that the next edition of the Ontario Building Code will bear?
The current Ontario Building Code bears the date 2012. I expect the next edition will bear the date 2018 or 2019, but I do not know. Perhaps there is someone on this system that is involved in its preparation and would know the answer to this question.

 

[Shotzie]

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=442726

for some preliminary discussion on this

 

[ajk1]

Thank you Shotzie. That is helpful. I added my comments to that site. Maybe we should form a committee to put some pressure on the authorities to hurry up, and at the least to give an expected date.

 

[ajk1]

I further continue this discussion at the link that Shotzie has provided.

 

[dik]

Maybe we should form a committee to put some pressure on the authorities to hurry up, and at the least to give an expected date.

You might form a committee to have the authorities to 'get it right the first time', rather, than continually change the codes all the time. Major changes can have printed pages as a 'fill in'.

Dik

 

[ajk1]

I got the amendments to the 2012 OBC. Even the amendments seem far behind what has been published to-date by the CSA and ASTM. For example, they still reference CSA S413-07 Parking Structures rather than the more recent CSA S413-14. Seems to be a bad situation, but this is government, so perhaps that must be expected.

Questions:

1. Is there any reason that we should not reference the most recent CSA and ASTM Standards (right up to 2018)? This would be consistent with our professional duty to the public to carry out our design to the most current thinking and research that has been accepted as safe and effective by the engineering community?

2. If the answer to the above is that we should not do that, then is there anything wrong with referencing the most current CSA and ASTM Standards if those particular Standards are not referenced in the OBC?

3. If the answer to the above questions is that this should not be done, does that mean that we must design to old OBC Standards, even in the rare case where the old Standard is wrong on the unsafe side?

The above questions are with respect to structural engineering. I realize that there may perhaps be contentious environmental issues that might have resulted in delay...I don't know.

Is anyone aware of any issue that arose because a structural engineer carried out his design to the latest CSA and ASTM Standards rather than the outdated ones listed in OBC ? This same issue arises every time there is a new OBC...it seems to lag so many years behind the NBC and there seems no reason why. I realize every province has to have its own Code, which seems to be going in the opposite direction in which the world is moving towards one standard Code to be used by many nations.

 

[P205]

The CSA S413-07 has an update (reaffirmed 2012) so it is somewhat newer than the 2007 version.

2) Division B, Part 1 of the OBC lists all the applicable standards.
3) The code is a minimum standard, so I see no problem in bumping something up. To me that is part of engineering judgment.

 

[ajk1]

To P205:

As you are probably aware, "re-affirmation" is not an update. It simply is an administrative procedure whereby the CSA asks the Technical Committee Chair whether the Standard is worthy of being continued or should be discontinued/withdrawn. At he time of that reaffirmation, I together with my co-vice chair and chair, etc., were at work on the 2014 version of S413. So the re-affirmation does not change the fact that it was an older standard with no update at that time.

I am well aware that Division B lists all the applicable Standards. It is because that it lists so many out-of-date Standards, that was the trigger for my post here. Even the amendments are not up to date. Have another look at this and see if you don't agree.

You are very right to remind me that the Code is a "minimum" standard. Excellent point. That is what my mentor 50 years ago used to remind us. So it would seem that there should be nothing wrong with referencing the latest CSA or ASTM Standard, etc., as long as we are sure that it does not reduce the strength of the designed element in any way. Does everyone agree with that? Any comment?

 

[P205]

The CSA A23.3, reaffirmed 2010 (for example) has many updates from the original 2004 version. So I disagree with your assessment.

 

[TLHS]

I have never, in a Canadian context, had an authority be annoyed or even mention that I used a newer version of a referenced standard. I'm sure if one of the revisions was a full rewrite it could be a problem, but I've never had someone have a problem with using the latest S16 or A23 even though it's newer than what's in the building code. Changes are generally incremental and it honestly doesn't matter. You're basically just taking advantage of a bit more current research.

 

[ajk1]

to TLHS: My experience too, exactly. Thanks.

 

[ajk1]

to P205 re: CSA A23.3 - 2004 (reaffirmed 2010):

If not too much trouble, can you please attach or paste here an example of an update to which you refer in the reaffirmed edition, so I can see if it is an "editorial"update or a "technical" update.? That would allow me to better understand your meaning.

My understanding of CSA rules, is that CSA can issue "editorial" updates, but any item that is a "technical" update generally requires a new edition of the Standard (not just a reaffirmation).

"Editorial" updates (such as inadvertent conflicting words not caught during the editorial review process prior to publication) can be issued anytime. See recent recent editorial update to S413.

Technical updates are updates that may change or modify the meaning.
Reaffirmed does not mean that the Standard has necessarily been updated. It generally means:
a) that there is continued need and use for the standard without updating at that time, so CSA Should not continue it even though it has been in use for many years, and/or
b) there is currently no other published CSA Standard available to replace it.

I believe that a review of the amendments published to-date on the OBC website will show that there are more current published CSA Standards avaialable than are indicated by the amendments. I will check this tomorrow.

The issue would be mitigated if the OBC were published essentially concurrently with NBC

 

[Ron]

At least I see that the Ontario Building Code is not significantly different than other building codes such as the IBC and the Florida Building Code....they are always behind, poorly written and conflicting. Agree with dik....they should strive to get it right to begin and then just update pages.....A good example is the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. They've been doing that for over 50 years.

We are in the 5th or 6th writing of the Florida Building Code and it still contains some of the same mistakes of the original, yet it gets "changed" every 3 to 5 years.

 

[ajk1]

I made a typo...so here is my last response with the typos corrected, below. Ron's comments are interesting. I guess this sort of problem is widespread.

ajk1 (Structural)(OP)19 Aug 18 02:22
to P205 re: CSA A23.3 - 2004 (reaffirmed 2010):

If not too much trouble, can you please attach or paste here an example of an update to which you refer in the reaffirmed edition, so I can see if it is an "editorial"update or a "technical" update? That would allow me to better understand your meaning.

My understanding of CSA rules, is that CSA can issue "editorial" updates at any time, but any item that is a "technical" update generally requires a new edition of the Standard (not just a reaffirmation).

"Editorial" updates (such as inadvertent conflicting words not caught during the editorial review process prior to publication) can be issued anytime. See recent editorial update to S413.

"Technical" updates are updates that may change or modify the meaning.
Reaffirmed does not mean that the Standard has necessarily been updated. It generally means:
a) that there is continued need and use for the standard without updating at that time, so CSA should continue it even though it has been in use for many years, and/or
b) there is currently no other published CSA Standard available to replace it.

I believe that a review of the amendments published to-date on the OBC website will show that there are more current published CSA Standards available than are indicated by the amendments. I will check this tomorrow.

The issue would be mitigated if the OBC were published essentially concurrently with NBC

 

[P205]

I don't want to derail this discussion by diving into the details as this is a high-level discussion of OBC/NBC.

Looking at cl.21.8.3.2(b)
A23.3-04

...using RdRo equal to 1.0​

A23.3-04 R2010

...using RdRo equal to 1.3​

The factored shear resistance shall not exceed...​

I don't know the specifics of what constitutes an editorial change or a technical change. To me this is a material change and has a real/measurable impact on the design values used in that particular clause.

 

[jayrod12]

I have never, in a Canadian context, had an authority be annoyed or even mention that I used a newer version of a referenced standard.

Unfortunately you must not have done work for the City of Winnipeg. We update our general notes to reference the newest CSA standards as they become available, and on more than one occasion they've made us change our notes back to the referenced standard in the NBCC 2010. It's bordering on embarrassing.

 

[dik]

My project notes stipulate:


REFERENCE OR COMPLIANCE WITH A STANDARD SHALL MEAN REFERENCE TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF THAT STANDARD AS WELL AS SUPPLEMENTS AND ALL DOCUMENTS REFERENCED THEREIN, UNLESS REFERENCE TO A SPECIFIC DOCUMENT EDITION IS MADE

Should have added that I don't put a year of issue for the CSA specs...

Dik

 

[EdStainless]

Not that it matters much, but in the ASTM world you are expected to be working to the most current version.
The year dated versions are either major revisions or reaffirmations and the lettered versions (Greek) are editorial changes.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

 

[P205]

@dik I want to start off by saying that I understand and respect your choice for not giving the year. However I find your wording quite verbose and "lawyer-speak". Is it really necessary to state it in such a way?

I personally rather have the year stated on our drawings. I see this as following the KISS rule. Specific and unambiguous.

Again, I respect your method as well.

 

[dik]

P205... I've encountered too many doc and specs with the wrong year listed. I've found that far too little effort is generally put into specifications. Also had a major project here where the Construction Manager forgot to issue the specs... my detailed drawing notes, sort of, saved the day. By using this approach I do not have to concern with updating the documents from year to year... legalese, yes... but, like it or not, your documents are legal instruments.

Can you shorten it? I'm not adverse to revising it.

Dik