Question concerning structural steel design and thermal expansion...

[ElMondoHummus]

Huh. From reading the ICC's site and your all's comments, I take it that codes propogate slowly, don't they?

 

[Animal]

Huh. From reading the ICC's site and your all's comments, I take it that codes propogate slowly, don't they?

The codes are on a three year cycle. They get published, the first year the kinks get worked out, the second year the changes are worked out and the third it gets rewritten (Actually, I think they based it on how often they need a new source of revenue)

It usually takes time for the states to adopt the new code with there own changes as enact law, and then have it take effect.

Codes are open to interpretation and can also be wrong. I appealed a building official's ruling one time to BOCA, they ended up admitting that we had interpreted the code correctly, but it was not what they had intended the code to mean, so they ruled against me and changed the code in the next edition due to me.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Huh. From reading the ICC's site and your all's comments, I take it that codes propogate slowly, don't they?

Yes, it's even slower for structural. ASCE7 (the principle code that IBC references) is about to switch to a 5-year cycle, rather than a 3 year cycle like the IBC currently is on. The cycles allow for periods of suggestions to roll in, time to have public comments on those suggestions, and then voting by the committee members. And they like to go slooooooooooooooooooooow.

My state just adopted the IBC 2009. And even then it doesn't even go into full effect until June. However I've heard that there's some non-seismic areas up in the north-east that are still on the UBC '97. Barbarians!

 

[Newtons Bit]

Thanks for the link......I looked at the Michigan codes.....they have 2003 online, Michigan just went to the 2009 on Mar 11, so I will have to shell out the $$$ shortly.

I don't think there are state specific copies of IBC (at least my state doesn't do it). Basically the state just releases documents that modify specific provisions of the Code. There's even a section of the IBC that talks about this.

 

[AZCat]

I don't think there are state specific copies of IBC (at least my state doesn't do it). Basically the state just releases documents that modify specific provisions of the Code. There's even a section of the IBC that talks about this.

For some states (at least Michigan, because I've had to look there) you can purchase state-specific copies that include all the state amendments in the text. Depending on the volume of changes it can be worth the extra cost.

 

[Newtons Bit]

For some states (at least Michigan, because I've had to look there) you can purchase state-specific copies that include all the state amendments in the text. Depending on the volume of changes it can be worth the extra cost.

Eww. I can't imagine how many changes that must be.

 

[AZCat]

Eww. I can't imagine how many changes that must be.

Meh. the Michigan changes (to the IBC/IRC - others are separate) are about 60 pages, but I just flip through to find the changes to the sections I'm interested in at that moment. It's not that bad once you're used to it.

 

[Animal]

I don't think there are state specific copies of IBC (at least my state doesn't do it). Basically the state just releases documents that modify specific provisions of the Code. There's even a section of the IBC that talks about this.

Actually there are. There is a separate published Michigan Building Code, Residential Code, Mechanical Code etc etc. Fortunately, Michigan back around 2000 mandated a state building code so we do not have to deal with "city codes" as well.

http://www.bookmarki.com/State-Building-Codes-s/71.htm

 

[Animal]

Eww. I can't imagine how many changes that must be.

It is not that bad, a lot of it is local issues........like allowing residential construction under 3500 s.f. to not be sealed by an architect.

 

[BasqueArch]

Another reason that the adoption of new IBC codes is delayed is that plan review examiners have to be trained for the new code.

IBC 2009 has added a new Section 1614 – Structural Integrity, that wasn’t in IBC 2006.
This Section applies to high rise buildings only. A sampling:

Section 1614.3 Frame Structures commentary– “These provisions enhance the overall structural integrity and resistance of frame structures by establishing minimum requirements for tying together the primary structural elements.”

Section 1614.3.2.1 . Columns commentary –“The additional requirement for the tensile strength of column splices enhances the column’s performance in unforeseen events.”

Section 1614.3.2.2 Beams – (actual code) “End connections of all beams and girders shall have a minimum nominal axial tensile strength equal to the required vertical shear strength for allowable stress design (ASD) or two-thirds of the required shear strength for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) but not less than 10 kips (45kN). For the purpose of this section, the shear force and the axial tensile force need not be considered to act simultaneously.”

Beams commentary- “Providing the required tensile strength for all beam and girder connections provides some ability to carry transfer and/or redistribute load in the event there is loss of support. …”

Section 403 High Rise Buidlings
Section 403.2.4 Sprayed fire-resistant materials (SFRM) Commentary – “Recommendation 6 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) Report calls for the improvement of the in-place performance of the SFRM.” The code goes on about minimum bond strength of the SFRM.

So yes, these and other of 23 IBC 2009 code changes to high rise buildings are the direct result of the NIST WTC Report recommendations. I believe ergo claimed these changes in the codes were routine, not caused by the NIST report and therefore not evidence of support by the professional community of the NIST report. I'm not aware of any thermal structural expansion requirements in the new (2009) or future (2012) code, but structural connections have been strengthened as has SFRM to allow greater survivability of the structure in case of "unforeseen events."

The IBC 2012 code edition will be issued in May, 2011,with 17 additional NIST WTC related changes.

 

[Animal]

Another reason that the adoption of new IBC codes is delayed is that plan review examiners have to be trained for the new code.

I always can tell (and hate it) when there is a code seminar for plan reviewers. All of a sudden, they all at the same time start interpreting code sections in a different way than had previously been done for years under the same code. It is always a MAJOR PITA

 

[AZCat]

I always can tell (and hate it) when there is a code seminar for plan reviewers. All of a sudden, they all at the same time start interpreting code sections in a different way than had previously been done for years under the same code. It is always a MAJOR PITA

Tell me about it. We've had the same problem. The worst part is that they are "interpreting" the code in a way that changes design (and should be the responsibility of the registrant) and isn't always cut-and-dried, yet the AHJ code reviewers are usually protected from suit whereas the responsible engineers aren't. You want to make design changes? Fine - but take some **** responsibility at the same time.

 

[Animal]

Tell me about it. We've had the same problem. The worst part is that they are "interpreting" the code in a way that changes design (and should be the responsibility of the registrant) and isn't always cut-and-dried, yet the AHJ code reviewers are usually protected from suit whereas the responsible engineers aren't. You want to make design changes? Fine - but take some **** responsibility at the same time.

The one I will never forget was when they came out with a new interpretation of the overflow drains in roofs. For years, you could connect the overflow drain to the roof conductor under the roof line and into the storm sewer system.....with no code change, all of a sudden code reviewers started requiring that the overflow drains be a completely separate system with those "lamb's tongue" discharges at grade. They had all "learned" it at a seminar.
It wasn't a major deal, but every time I see one of those ugly things near an entrance door, it reminds me of how it happened. On the other hand, at least it makes for more consistent interpretations. I remember many years back doing store designs, with the second exit through the stock room. Same code, 3 different jurisdictions and reviewers......1st on just required a clear path to be keep, 2nd required a painted "aisle" that was to be kept clear, 3rd required a wall to separate the space.

 

[AZCat]

The one I will never forget was when they came out with a new interpretation of the overflow drains in roofs. For years, you could connect the overflow drain to the roof conductor under the roof line and into the storm sewer system.....with no code change, all of a sudden code reviewers started requiring that the overflow drains be a completely separate system with those "lamb's tongue" discharges at grade. They had all "learned" it at a seminar.
It wasn't a major deal, but every time I see one of those ugly things near an entrance door, it reminds me of how it happened. On the other hand, at least it makes for more consistent interpretations. I remember many years back doing store designs, with the second exit through the stock room. Same code, 3 different jurisdictions and reviewers......1st on just required a clear path to be keep, 2nd required a painted "aisle" that was to be kept clear, 3rd required a wall to separate the space.

Eyuch - those drains always look horrible, no matter which one you use, and there never seems to be a good place to dump them.

We still have problems with consistency. One of the local jurisdictions requires a type of fixture be used (waterless urinals), while another bans its use.

 

[Architect]

Another reason that the adoption of new IBC codes is delayed is that plan review examiners have to be trained for the new code.

IBC 2009 has added a new Section 1614 – Structural Integrity, that wasn’t in IBC 2006.
This Section applies to high rise buildings only. A sampling:

Section 1614.3 Frame Structures commentary– “These provisions enhance the overall structural integrity and resistance of frame structures by establishing minimum requirements for tying together the primary structural elements.”

Section 1614.3.2.1 . Columns commentary –“The additional requirement for the tensile strength of column splices enhances the column’s performance in unforeseen events.”

Section 1614.3.2.2 Beams – (actual code) “End connections of all beams and girders shall have a minimum nominal axial tensile strength equal to the required vertical shear strength for allowable stress design (ASD) or two-thirds of the required shear strength for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) but not less than 10 kips (45kN). For the purpose of this section, the shear force and the axial tensile force need not be considered to act simultaneously.”

Beams commentary- “Providing the required tensile strength for all beam and girder connections provides some ability to carry transfer and/or redistribute load in the event there is loss of support. …”

These are effectively working towards the same objective as the revised Eurocodes, which seek to limit the scope for dispropportionate structural failure.

 

[Animal]

Eyuch - those drains always look horrible, no matter which one you use, and there never seems to be a good place to dump them.

We still have problems with consistency. One of the local jurisdictions requires a type of fixture be used (waterless urinals), while another bans its use.

I know this is getting a bit off topic, but speaking of waterless urinals, which stink be the end of the business day, caused issues with the plumbers union in Philly.......taking away lots of their "work" They insisted in one building that the water urinals still be plumbed for water and sanitation.....just because....