Ignore a new clause in the recent code 3

[JohnWk]

I want to ask two questions, legalization related. I think it is important to know for any structural engineer
1- I'm using the recent code to design but I want to ignore specific clause which is new and 99% of the structures in the country did not design for it. Is it legal to do that ? if yes, how to answer comments from a peer reviewer if they ask to use that clause ?

2- related to item 1 above. is it legal to design based on an older code? say we have 2018 version but I want to use 2009 version. again how to answer a peer reviewer comment of I need to use the new code.

I don't want to mention the specific clause or code. I want to ask these questions in general. Assume from Engineering Judgement point that new clause is for rare condition, not clear, missing important details and result very heavy reinforcement.

 

[IceNine]

1 vote for not legal or ethical

 

[dik]

It likely depends of the version of the code your local code refers to. In Manitoba, we are limited to the 2010 NBCC... by statute. This approach is generally upheld by the prof associations... a couple of years back a BC engineer was 'peepeewhacked' because he was using the most recent version. The Manitoba association follows the same silly reasoning. You'd think the professional organisations would realise that the most recent codes reflect the most recent information... not so.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JedClampett]

Follow it!
Why risk your career for a little reinforcing? If it's the new shear allowables in ACI 318, it was legally adopted by the committee, and that code was adopted by IBC. Until it changes, you need to follow it. Alternatively, go to your building department and have them either:
[ul]
[li]Grant you a one time exemption.[/li]
[li]Amend their adoption documents to disregard that clause.[/li]
[/ul]
And there's almost no way those are going to happen.

 

[dik]

The new NBCC, for guardrail design, allows a reduced horizonal load acting 'inwards'... which makes sense. This is not allowed until the province adapts the most recent code. Over 10 years back I was involved with a discussion with the AHJ for a project outside Ottawa and he allowed me to use that approach for guards with a precast project I did... it wasn't possible to develop the guards for a force in both directions.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SirPhobos]

You're either designing to code or not. Anything that isn't 100% to code, including every clause, is not "designed to code."

-- SirPhobos

 

[GeorgeTheCivilEngineer]

In the UK (and I would really expect in the USA) codes of practice are codes of practice - they are not the law.

Legality doesn't enter into it.

However, were there a mistake and legal proceedings then a criminal and civil court would certainly take into account the COP and what would normally be done, which would refer to a COP.

Going further, all indemnity policies I know of do not refer to COPs, they rely on reasonable skill and care. If a professional engineer can make a reasoned, engineered justification for ignoring a COP provision, or by using an older COP that is widely known to still be safe, then they should still be covered by their indemnity.

 

[IceNine]

In my U.S. state, there is a state law adopting the state building code, which is a modified version of IBC. So, I believe it is law where I practice.

 

[phamENG]

In terms of legality...probably depends on where you are practicing. Looks like Indonesia? I have precisely zero knowledge of the interplay between Indonesian law and building codes.

In Virginia (US), it's as IceNine says...we have a state law adopting an edited version of the various "International" codes as part of the state law. These codes define the minimum standard. Best way I've heard it said is that a building designed exactly to the building code is the worst building you can legally build. So if you code says you have to do it...you have to do it. If your code is not law, then it's an ethical question. And I would say that knowingly designing to a standard that has been shown by new research to be insufficient to protect the health and safety of the public is a textbook definition of unethical behavior.

 

[LittleInch]

Alexrm.

You seem to be confusing two separate things.

"Legal" is related to legislation in your jurisdiction, be that city, county, state or national legislation. This is often behind the times unless it writes the "latest issued code"

"Code" is rather vague. Do you mean a "design code" or "code of practice" or something else??

Many such codes state that they are not precise and and don't exclude engineering skill and judgement. If you don't want to follow a particular section which you believe is not correct for your circumstance then write a report justifying doing something else and get the client to approve it.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[cliff234]

Follow the building code. In my opinion, in the US, the code is the law. There is no grey area. If you violate the building code, you are breaking the law.

 

[dik]

In many Canadian provinces... designing to code is designing to the code stipulated... not necessarily the most recent code. Unfortunately the professional associations have taken the same stance.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[IRstuff]

A new structure is always bound by the most recent, relevant, code, isn't it? And typically, even old structures will require conformance to the latest code for anything recently modified.

Your desire to use an arbitrarily old code doesn't make any sense; otherwise, why not choose to design to a pre-1904 building code in San Francisco and let the lawsuits come when the next earthquake takes down the structure?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[dik]

You'd think so, but not in some provinces...

In BC the professional association found against a p.eng. that used that approach and in Manitoba, the professional association ruled with the city that the old code was the one applicable.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[IDS]

Assuming that the current design code in question is referenced by the applicable building code, then if the new code is more conservative and it is stated as a requirement (something that shall be done), then you should follow the new code, no question.

If you think the new requirements are unreasonable then raise it with the code committee, but requirements that are more conservative and that have been through the code approval process, followed by adoption in the building regulations, should not be ignored.

The Canadian examples given, where the new code is less conservative and has not yet been adopted by the regulating authorities, is clearly a very different matter.


Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

 

[rapt]

No grey area in Australia either, to which this post is obviously referring from the year references.

Or you could go back to CA1 which had no Seismic rules or 2009 which put the full requirement on Progressive Collapse and Structural Integrity requirements on the engineer to decide using Engineering Judgement, and which 99% of engineers proceeded to either ignore or judge that they did not need to do anything in the interests of making their buildings cheaper for their clients and cheaper for them to design.

Engineering Judgement does not allow a designer to ignore specific rules because they do not like them.

 

[Settingsun]

Assuming Rapt is correct on the code, you'll find that people would generally like to survive an earthquake. Please think of consequences beyond construction. Also note that the minimum EQ loads were increased in 2017. This isn't something the concrete code writers dreamed up out of nothing; it was decided that EQ design had been deficient.

 

[BridgeSmith]

If a new provision covering a "rare condition" is added to the code, it's usually because that rare condition resulted in a structural failure of some kind. If your structure incorporates that same rare condition, it would be prudent to follow the new provisions, whether required to or not (unless you're required not to by applicable statutes prohibiting the use of the newer code).

If you believe that the provision is for a situation that is not applicable to your structure, then you need to document in your design why it doesn't apply, but you better be sure that it doesn't. New provisions don't appear out of thin air; there's probably a research report documenting how and why the new provision was developed.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[Retrograde]

Assume from Engineering Judgement point that new clause is for rare condition, not clear, missing important details and result very heavy reinforcement.

That's quite an assumption to make, especially as you do not want mention the specific clause or code.

 

[driftLimiter]

Using an old code to justify that a new provision is irrelevant is not a good look. It laughs in the face of code progress and perpetuates deficient design. The trend in code cycles typically is that things get more complicated for the engineer, but the idea is that they result in safer structures based on the current state of technology, research, and evidence from failures in the field. I know that many of us think fondly back to simpler times, but today we have to challenge ourselves to sharpen our pencils and apply the latest and greatest industry knowledge.

The intention of the code writers when adding new provisions is not always to maintain the status quo, sometimes we have big shifts in our thinking. Like here in the US the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake and the 1994 Northridge earthquake were major perciptators (is this a word?) of change in the code and in the practice of building construction. We have pre-1994 buildings and post 1994 buildings the new buildings are known to have better performance assuming they are code compliant. I'm sure contractors screamed about it for several years, "You're using holddowns from the roof framing to the wall? I have been doing buildings in this area for years and never seen that. Its a waste of money." Sometimes we need to stick to our guns, explain our reasoning, sharpen our pencils as much as possible before delivering a result.

So you claim that this provision requires a lot of additional heavy reinforcement, have you made other simplifications in your analysis that contribute to this? Can you refine your analysis to reduce the impact of this provision as much as possible? This is unfortunately the reality for us engineers, we can't always please everyone, but we certainly don't want to have a total failure under our purview, any complaints about economy would pale in comparison to that.


I would like to be a bit contrarian in regards to some other posts here. Following the code is a requirement by law yes I agree, however there is a lot of parts of the code that require judgement and interpretation to implement effectively. Unfortunately I see variation in how engineers apply the code in several areas. Also the code is sometimes silent on items that are crucial for engineers to address. I guess I am saying that as engineers we need to strive to understand why the code is the way it is and interpret the provisions to produce our end product. The code has a lot of grey imho, but choosing to follow the code or not is black and white.