Staying Up to Date with Building Codes... 3

[KevinChez]

I am going back and forth with a building department because I referenced a 2017 IRC Code.

They want it to say 2020. I usually just say "latest edition" but a plan examiner in another small NY town wanted it worded how he wanted it worded. So I carried it over and forgot it said 2017.

Anyways what is the best way to stay up to date? They are all online now so I don't buy hard copies.

And even the 2020 Code in New York uses the 2018 IRC so there are dates flying around everywhere.

I am going start saying IRC code, latest edition, as adopted by NY State.

thx.

 

[TheoreticalHope]

I always try to use latest editions and show the latest (CSA S6-19) on my specifications.
It's a good indicator when a junior engineer copies and pastes outdated specs when they use outdated references. When I see CSA S6-06, I wonder what sort of details were not incorporated.

Also, how are you guys handling the new CSA subscription model to stay up to date? What used to be a $300 book every four years is now a $11,000 subscription fee. How is this affordable?

 

[phamENG]

Trundle - that's funny. As a junior engineer, I was the one calling out all the senior guys for referencing standards that were 15 years out of date...

When faced with a situation where the referenced code and "latest and greatest" are out of sync (which is often here - Virginia stays at least one code edition behind in adoption), I go for the worst case scenario. For instance, 7-16 has actually reduced wind loads in some jurisdictions due to more accurate modeling. If you live in one of those areas, but the local code is still using 7-10, is it okay to use the lower wind speed and resulting loads? I would argue no, you need to use the higher speed of the official building code. On the flip side of that, I'll invoke some of the new sections of 7-16 for special loading cases like attached canopies where the current code has no clear guidance.

In other words, if new references make things more restrictive, I'll use that. If they make things less restrictive, I'll use the more restrictive code provisions that are in force.

 

[skeletron]

@Trundle: I don't how understand the subscription fee model unless someone is working on large projects or within multi-discipline firms. Technically they are not supposed to be distributed, though, so I don't even understand how that works (nor do I want to find out).

Sure, a design standard like CSA S6 is a good example...but what about the material standards. Are people really going out to grab W59-18 to replace W59-13 even though they are spec'ing 6mm fillets throughout? Are designers really going out to grab A23.1-19 or A23.2-19 even when they consistently spec 25MPa residential footings? Are residential designers getting CSA O151-17 ($125) just so they can spec DF plywood?

Maybe there is a point to be made that we should rely on more direct language in the general notes instead of "designed in accordance with _(insert standard)_".

 

[dik]

Tired of changing spec references... I modified the company specs to something similar to what I included above in my project notes. In the work I do, I often encounter specs with outdated or withdrawn references. One common reference is to the latest version of CSA S16.1; this went out of date in 1989, I think.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik