Referenced document undermines IBC requirement?

[JAE]

We came across a philosophical question about codes the other day. Here’s the issue:

There is a section in the IBC that references a document that deals with design of storage racks
(found here: RMI Spec link)

This is a document that is directly referenced by the International Building Code (IBC) in a section on rack design (don’t remember the exact IBC section). In chapter 35 (the IBC reference chapter) they refer to the document as well.

The IBC section states that racks SHALL be designed per the RMI Specification.

When you go to the RMI spec and download it (free at the link above) you find within that it goes out of its way to disclaim itself. It states that it is entirely a voluntary document and that it should be considered as a guide.

My question:
[red]If the IBC says you SHALL design to a referenced document, and the referenced document says you DON’T have to design to it, which is correct?[/red]

I see it as either of two options:

1. The IBC SHALL over-rides the RMI’s “voluntary” statements.
2. The IBC says you SHALL use the RMI for rack design and that word SHALL means that everything within the RMI is true – even the “voluntary” aspect of it.

What do you wise folks say?

 

[apsix]

I assume that the industry body doesn't have the authority to declare its specification to be mandatory, but the IBC does.
It seems clear, compliance with the RMI spec is required to comply with the IBC.

 

[woodman88]

The IBC is not a code it is a "model code" and as such is not mandatory. The local jurisdiction may adopt is as printed or add to it, and/or make any changes to it they want before passing their building code. If the local jurisdiction adopted it without any changes to that section than I would say the local jurisdiction is making the RMI mandatory. But you should ask the local building department about this.

Garth Dreger PE
AZ Phoenix area

 

[steellion]

I think apsix is on the right track. RMI has no authority, but the IBC (w/ state amendments) does. The IBC could theoretically change their minds and go with a different rack design spec, which is probably why RMI can't claim that it's "mandatory".

The other thing is, if you're not going to use RMI, what would you use?

 

[Ron]

JAE...I agree with apsix. The code makes the RMI specification mandatory; although, I'm sure RMI wants to keep it as a voluntary guide for liability purposes. The disparity tends to create a liability gap that doesn't have to be filled by either side. The "code" enjoys a degree of sovereignty when adopted by a municipality or state, while RMI disclaims its liability by its statement of voluntary use (though I'm fairly sure that they could get zapped by a good attorney claiming specific reliance!)

Many of the ACI documents are "recommended practices" rather than mandatory specifications. In the IBC for instance, ACI 216.1 on Fire Resistance is a "Guide" under ACI terminology, but is referenced in Section 721 in a manner that it "shall" be acceptable under the code to use the "Guide". The Florida Building code has even more of them referenced and mandated. Here is ACI's disclaimer for the use of such items...

[highlight]ACI Committee Reports, Guides, Standard Practices, and Commentaries are intended for guidance in designing, planning, executing, or inspecting construction, and in preparing specifications. Reference to these documents shall not be made in the Project Documents. If items found in these documents are desired to be part of the Project Documents, they should be phrased in mandatory language and incorporated into the Project Documents.[/highlight]

There are other examples of "industry guides" that are intended as such by their issuing organization getting a mandatory reference in the code, so I would view this one as being no different.

Woodman88..I agree with your definition; however, almost all municipalities and most states adopt some model code, most often the IBC. In Florida we have a state building code (as many states have), and our code is based on the IBC with some additions, particularly for wind conditions in Florida. Municipalities do not need to adopt it by ordinance anymore as they did the Standard Building Code. By Florida statute, all locations in Florida are required to use the FBC. Many states adopt the IBC in its entirety and either supplement it or not.

My apologies...didn't mean to get so wordy!

 

[BAretired]

The Canadian code has non-mandatory requirements in it as well. Appendix D to CSA S-16 "Recommended Maximum Values for Deflections for Specified Design Live and Wind Loads" starts out with:

Note: This Appendix is not a mandatory part of this Standard.

Table D1 contains Deflection Criteria and I usually take it seriously, but I wonder what legal repercussions there might be if one were to exceed the values in the table by a significant amount. I am guessing that the client would have a pretty good case in court if he argued that his engineer was not following normally accepted practice.

So, why not make it a mandatory part of the Standard?

BA

 

[DTGT2002]

The concept of "mandatory" comes with the language used within the body of the document. So there is a substantial difference between, you should install the rebar correctly, vs. you shall do as follows.

The ACI and other disclaimers exist to instruct the user/specifier that in order to include this document in a specification or other design requirement, you must rewrite the document such that it is written in mandatory language.

If the IBC is referring to a document produced without a proper consensus building approach, shame on them. That said, is it true that there is no better document within that realm of the design work with which to reference? Doesn't really make it right, but I suppose having something is better than nothing - til you start the engineers and laywers on it!

Daniel Toon

 

[JAE]

Thanks for the replies so far - appreciate them very much.

One way to look at this question is from the perspective of the client.

For example - the IBC has no provision stating that racks must be bolted to the floor. The RMI does. If we write a report to the client saying "you must bolt these to the floor" but then tell them that "bolting is a voluntary thing in RMI and not mandated by the IBC" he's going to ask me whether he has to or not....and generally be very confused.

(My response, by the way, would be that good engineering judgement previals and MY recommendation is to bolt to the floor - if he doesn't - well, he's on his own then.)

 

[paddingtongreen]

Tornado in a teacup.

The institutions only write advisory documents because they would be sued every time a compliant edifice failed. It is for a government body to mandate compliance with these advisory documents because government bodies are protected from lawsuit. The institutions have no power to enforce their codes and specifications.

Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

 

[JAE]

I understand and appreciate your comment paddingtongreen.

But my question isn't WHETHER the RMI should or should not say they are voluntary. My question was

If
the IBC mandates the use of RMI
and
the RMI says it is voluntary
then
does the IBC reference make it voluntary or does the RMI still remain voluntary?

 

[Ron]

JAE...I've given this one some more thought and almost came to the conclusion that maybe even though it was referenced by the code, it remained voluntary...almost...I do believe the code, through ordinance, statute, and accepted practice does have the authority to mandate such use, since it mandates the other provisions.

Another way to skin the cat is to do as ACI states....pull all the provisions that you want out of the RMI document (with the exception of the voluntary statement) and include it in your plans/specs. Once the plans/specs are accepted by the code authority, to deviate from them becomes a code violation.

You obviously know the liability implications for not anchoring the racks, but as usual, our clients don't want to hear what we tell them.

 

[BAretired]

Bolting racks to the floor would seem like prudent design even where seismic events are rare. If an engineer does not require bolting racks to the floor in a seismic area, he would, in my opinion, be using very bad judgment.

Some years ago, I was involved with book racks in Edmonton, Alberta where the seismic activity is almost nil. But you could still have a pressure difference resulting from air movement, so the racks were all tied down.

To have done otherwise would have been to risk a domino effect because the racks were much higher than the width of the aisles.

BA

 

[paddingtongreen]

JAE, check for a code case about this subject.

If this is a general disclaimer at the beginning of the specification, my bet is that compliance is mandatory; if the disclaimer is just for the one section, then I think it is optional.

Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

 

[HgTX]

Specifying a guide as mandatory makes it mandatory.

If the guide is written in fairly straightforward language where it is clear what meets it and what didn't, that works and has been done.

If the guide is written with a lot of fuzzy language and you couldn't possibly check, audit, or inspect to it, then that doesn't work--but it's still been done.

(Example: There were a lot of bridge-related specifications that got written specifying the FHWA guide to fabrication with HPS 70W steel. That was fine when the guide was a bunch of recommended requirements and even some suggested specification language at the end. It wasn't so fine when the guide was changed to be much more guidey and all the spec-like stuff came out of it--but various specifications still referenced that guide till it finally was superseded by a revision to the welding code.)

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[msucog]

and to expand on something mentioned above, the local authority does not necessarily have to adopt/ammend the codes for ibc to be "the law". most states have already adopted them as such (in to law) but the local authority does have the ability to ammend the codes from there. so don't assume that you can simply throw the codes out the window.

basically the rmi is saying that it itself is a guide...ibc says the guide shall be the law.

 

[JAE]

Well, the IBC doesn't say that the guide is law.

What it says is (I'm parsing out the English here):

roughly: the design of racks shall be in accordance with the RMI.

"in accordance with" is the key term. It either means - do what the guide says (The guide says it is voluntary) or it says - no matter how the guide sees itself, do what the guide says.

It's a subtle difference but its the root of my question.

Maybe I'll also try to post the question to ICC and see what they say (I'm not holding my breath).

 

[Ron]

JAE...the Florida Building Code has the same reference...

SECTION 2208
STEEL STORAGE RACKS
2208.1 Storage racks. The design, testing and utilization of industrial steel storage racks shall be in accordance with the RMI Specification for the Design, Testing and Utilization of Industrial Steel Storage Racks.

The Building Officials Assoc. of Florida and The Florida Department of Building Codes and Standards have a procedure to submit for a non-binding code interpretation. I'll submit and see what they say as well...It usually takes about a week to get a response.

Here's what I'll ask (it has to be worded in a certain way for their interpretation)...

"Is it the intent of Section 2208, paragraph 2208.1 of the FBC to require all the provisions of the RMI Specification for the Design, Testing, and Utilization of Industrial Steel Storage Racks, even though RMI notes that its specification is voluntary?"

I'll post their response...

 

[TXStructural]

IBC 2006 section 2208.
Trade associations produce voluntary industry standards, which member companies and others may choose to follow.
A member company can produce a "non-compliant" product, for one purpose or another, which might be perfectly acceptable in some instances.

Adoption by a code body mandates that products used in that jursidiction comply with the written "industry standard."

For instance, CRSI currently publishes documents in non-mandatory language, for use in general construction. Where a product or procedure is subject to a code which mandates compliance, the requirements become mandatory.

SJI wrote theirs in mandatory language.

The preface to ACI 318-08 says the language used allows for its adoption as or by a code as mandatory without change to the language.

Also note that ACI, and most likely ICC, have begun only referencing documents adopted by an open consensus process (such as ACI, ANSI or ASTM.) This will require that these adopted "standards" meet this requirement, rather than simply being an industry produced guideline.

 

[apsix]

I think you are being too legalistic about this.
The intent of the IBC is clear; design to the RMI spec. and by implication ignore the statement about it only being a guide.
I'm sure you could spend a lot of money in legal fees to try to determine that you can avoid designing to RMI, but would there be any point to that?

 

[JAE]

apsix - I understand that one shouldn't get too hung up on micro-issues of the code.

But in this case, I'm using it as an example to better flush out the aspects of an adopted code (the IBC) referencing a source and how they relate to one another - specifically when the reference says it's voluntary.

The IBC has, in recent years, begun a process where much of its content is referenced outside itself.

This is not new, but has become much more prevalent of late.

So I don't think just blowing it off as "too legalistic" is what I'd like to do here. I would rather see what others say about it (and perhaps the ICC or Ron's submitted question to the FBC) and see what comes out of it.

I do have to (and will have to in the future) respond to clients questions on this and I'd like to know the true relationships, legal issues, and standard of practice regarding it.