The Reasons We Have Codes 14

[JedClampett]

For all the griping we do, it's good to have a historical reminder that our work isn't arbitrary and has a reason.

 

[IRstuff]

Sure, if you're interested in snowflakes and exploding boilers. Life was cheap, so were regulations. If you didn't live in San Francisco proper on April 18, 1906 and weren't one of the 3000 to die or one of their families, then yes, codes are unnecessary. Even today, with codes, people cheat, which is why a bunch of UC Berkeley students' lives were extinguished because the builder cheated. But, at least the codes were in place, so students living in buildings where the builders didn't cheat can party hardy.

Do you want to live in a world without laws as well? The world functioned for millenia without codified laws as well. Codes are the laws for building and making things. They allow me to go to any hardware store and buy a fitting, knowing that it'll fit my plumbing, and without my having to make my own.

Otherwise chaos and BS products will abound. I got a package of AAA batteries, or so the labels claimed, but they were 20 mils shorter than what they should have been, making them useless in almost all equipment that I could possibly use them in. That would be the norm without codes and standards.

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

 

[wannabeSE]

. . . gas explosion in 1937 in Texas that resulted in the Texas Engineering laws.

California started registering civil engineers after a dam collapsed in 1928:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam

. It is the second deadliest disaster in California history following the San Francisco earthquake.

 

[BigInch]

And by the way, the number of questions having to do with codes and their interpretations that appear on Eng-Tips forums would indicate that codes form a rather large percentage of the enginereing food chain. I might suggest at least a slight smile is in order while you are reading them.

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

 

[JohnRBaker]

Speaking of historical examples that supports the premise of this thread, we don't have to look any further than another Eng-Tips thread:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=402006

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[hokie66]

I don't dispute the need for Codes. But a large amount of the questions we get on Eng-Tips are because the Codes are unnecessarily complex and obscure. Codes are no substitute for engineering theory and judgment, especially when the Codes have been "coded" into computer software, and students taught to use the software without also having the ability to interrogate the programs. This problem is the making largely of academia, and I wouldn't look to government to solve it.

 

[BigInch]

Perhaps "complex and obscure" to some, but not so much to others, which is why questions get both asked and answered here. Experienced engineers are more capable of explaining and interpreting code ..and other issuees, since they have had a chance to ask the same or similar questions to the experienced engineers that came before them.

I can't think of a good example I know of which would illustrate an "Unnecessary" complex phrase in a code. Do you have an example you're thinking of? Usually, if I read a clause no more than twice, I get it. OK maybe 3 or 4 times if it's in Spanish. Tax and legal codes, that's another story, but also another web site.

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

 

[hokie66]

ACI318 is the best example in my field. When I started, the version was ACI318-1963. It was 6" x 9", 144 pages. It was, with just a couple of exceptions, completely readable and understandable to engineering students. I don't know exactly how much more verbose the current standard is, but MUCH more. With the exception of provisions for torsion, and allowance for high strength concretes, structures designed by the 1963 Code and the 2014 Code would not vary enough to matter.

 

[BigInch]

Today is more verbose without saying anything extra. It's been that way since copy machines eliminated carbon paper and got worse after we didn't have to type directly on paper any more.

What parts of 318 appear to be unnecessarily complex? It does include a lot more than I first remember in 1975. Before didn't you have to buy the commentary separately. Now it's included. And a lot of appendicies on alternate design methods that I don't seem to remember from before.

The pipeline design codes have probably changed far more over the years. Now they include offshore pipelines. I wouldn't say unnecessarily, even though the design of an offshore pipeline then and now wouldn't be all that different. Just now they also define minimum requirements for offshore pipelines. Before we just knew we had to put in a cathodic protection system. Today they want to tell us that it is a minimum requirement. Seems logical since the petroleum pipeline companies layed off a lot of experienced engineers in the 80s and just hire engineering companies, most not with a lot of pipeline experience, to do that these days. Codes have to expand to include new systems, new methods, new materials. Of course they will become more complex, even though they may not actually change a lot of basic design practice. I wouldn't want someone with a 1963 code designing a 787, or wiring a solar rooftop sytem today either.

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

 

[hokie66]

There wasn't a commentary in 1963. But you did need textbooks to explain it, preferably one written by one of the Code writers.

You are right that there are a lot of things that require design today that didn't exist before. But "the more things change, the more they stay the same". I don't know who said that.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Just because a door opens outwards does not guarantee safe exit, unfortunately. Look at the Station Nightclub fire (where the band Great White lost a member)... double door, but so many people rushed it at once, they all got stuck tripping over each other. Despite being halfway out of the building, I don't believe any of them made it and succumbed to smoke inhalation.

While not gruesome, the image may be disturbing to some, so I attached it instead of hotlinking.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[BigInch]

Absolutely right, outward opening doors won't save anyone, but inward opening doors can easily kill.

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Aaaaand it printed the pic anyway... sorry about that, folks.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[IRstuff]

According to the page source, you used the Picture command to reference the image, which is essentially command that displays the image in your signature block.

You can edit it, can you not?

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

 

[waross]

As I understand the development of building codes the first codes were developed by the insurance underwriters to protect their interests.
Ponder "UL testing".
As time went on, disasters occurred which affected voters more than insurance companies and the politicians became involved.


Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[BigInch]

Sake of regulation? Where is that idea coming from. Please go back up and read the thread. Nobody has yet been able to produce an example with anywhere near the credibility of the examples above demonstrating the exact opposite, that most all regulations were enacted after large disasters happened to protect people from the same happening again. Industry did NOTHING!

Waross, an example please that demonstrates your contention of regulation for the sake of regulation.

The insurance companies couldn't handle what was happening with all the boiler explosions going on. Losses, losses, losses. They obviously couldn't charge rates that would put their customers out of business. Insuance companies paid the owners, who attempted to pay $100 for killing the only breadwinner of the household. The people demanded safety standards be enacted. Industry was not responsible enough to police itself... as always. Plain and simple.

Reaction to change doesn't stop it

 

[JedClampett]

What irks me is the anecdotal examples (cow farts; pond in the back yard; etc.) that are pulled out whenever the big guys want to squelch all rules and regulations. Regulations are more thoroughly vetted than our designs. There's reviews, public hearings, etc. They all (well most) have good reasons and sound science behind them.
What people have to recognize is the larger agenda of the heavy political hitters. If they can smear a stink on some regulations, pretty soon, they can have no regulations.
In Phoenix, not that long ago, there was some restaurant that wanted to remodel or expand or something. The owner didn't get permits and was stopped. This was an example of; "government gone wild." A "job killer." "The little guy getting pounded into the ground!" So let's get rid of permits!!

 

[waross]

I am pretty sure that at one time California passed legislation mandating that by a certain date, a legislated percentage of all cars in California must be battery powered.
The legislation quietly went away before the deadline. It would have indirectly caused more pollution than it eliminated.



Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[JohnRBaker]

The California law never explicitly encouraged "battery powered" cars but rather focused on "zero emission" vehicles, which is the real goal. And it was never 100%, but rather a modest target of "zero emission" vehicles making up 15% of the total new car sales by 2025. That being said, it is true that this law was never enacted.

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/08/24/california-zero-emission-mandate-bill-withdrawn/

As it now stands, the official goal is to have 1 million ZEV's (Zero Emission Vehicles) on California highways by 2025. Currently there are about 250,000 ZEV's registered in the state and at the current rate of adoption, it appears that the goal of 1 million by 2025 will be easily met.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[wannabeSE]

BigInch
re complex codes
To pile on with what Hokie said, the 1997 UBC has 2 pages of text and 2 pages of tables for wind loads. ASCE 7-05 has a 10 page of text and 49 pages of tables and figures in 1 chapter for wind loads. Since people complained that the wind code is too complex, ASCE 7-10, is "simplified" with 6 chapters for wind loads. I don't have any problems with the 60 pages of wind load requirements. But, I have a hard time sifting through 6 chapters of redundant information in ASCE 7-10.

 

[hokie66]

That's a windy code.