icc code article cause for concern

huangyhg

icc code article cause for concern
jeesh - why not just stop changing the code altogether?
(i'm being sarcastic here).
i'm not sure i understand the issues of concern here.  gosch seems to be concerned that the process is too quick and doesn't allow engineers time to weigh in on any proposed changes.

while i agree with the overall concept proposed, it seems a little crazy to shut off proposals less than 2 months after the previous code is published and regularly available.  to my knowledge ibc 09 is still not in print as of today.  how can you intelligently make a code change proposal if you haven't worked with the existing code to know where the issues are?
most of the standards bodies are moving towards a 5-year cycle to minimize the frequency of changes to a user.  if that were the case here, we could have had a 2 year window to learn the new code prior to proposing changes, then they could have their 3 year review and approval process.  there is likely to be not that much changed in ibc 09, since many of the standards group won't issue a new edition until 2010 after their last one in 2005.
this link does a nice job explaining the changes.
i longer cycle seems better to me assuming that astm, aci, etc etc all use a longer cycle and try to coordinate them so that they correspond. as a testing firm, we're forced to buy all applicable standards, testing methods, references etc and the costs are outrageous when there's a new astm every year because three words are changed...but you can't tell that until you buy the thing. then if/when you ever get in to a technical argument, you have folks using older/newer this or that as the basis for the argument. add in the fact that many architects/engineers use the same specs from 10+ years back and the discussions become very convoluted and you end up fighting over technicalities instead of the actual issue.
i seriously doubt i will see dramatic improvements on the topic because it is like killing the cash cow.
msucog
simply put it is a money making machine. i go back to the late 70's using the boca code. in the 100's of buildings i did through the 80's and 90's there was rarely a code issue. today its all about selling new codes.
cap4000, not sure it's about selling new codes as it may be about researching for new codes.  with large on-line resources, i don't think anyone is making a mint on publishing or epublishing codes.
regards,
qshake
eng-tips forums:real solutions for real problems really quick.

the problem with such a long revision time is that an error in the code takes an extremely long time to correct.  if the new code is only out a few months before the revisions for the next cycle are due, it will easily be 6 years before the code is corrected, 8-9 years before it is adopted by most jurisdictions.
take the sign industry for example.  asce 7-05 jacked up the wind loads by over 50% on signs as compared to most us building codes that have ever existed.  it took some doing, but many in the sign industry got together to fund research in an attempt to revise these loads.  this is not cheap to do.  so while those in the industry are getting hit with huge structure cost increases, they are also spending money on this research.  when will this all pay off?  probably not until 2018!  it is too late to get the results into asce 7-10, so they have to wait for asce 7-15.  that spec will not be in ibc until 2015 or 2018.
although i agree that it is getting ridiculous having to buy codes and updates constantly and having to know the prior 3 versions for locations that haven't adopted the new versions, at least if a supplement comes out that contradicts the current code by correcting an error a building official may be more likely to approve a variance from that code.  now that opportunity is lost.  
   
in other countries amendments are issued if the error is deemed significant enough, rather than waiting for the next edition.
is this not the case in the us?
it varies from code-publishing organization to organization or even committee to committee or code to code.
there's no national policy on amendments vs. interims vs. whatever.
hg
unauthorized reproduction or linking forbidden without express written permission.
jeesh - why not just stop changing the code altogether?
(i'm being sarcastic here).
i'm not sure i understand the issues of concern here.  gosch seems to be concerned that the process is too quick and doesn't allow engineers time to weigh in on any proposed changes.

while i agree with the overall concept proposed, it seems a little crazy to shut off proposals less than 2 months after the previous code is published and regularly available.  to my knowledge ibc 09 is still not in print as of today.  how can you intelligently make a code change proposal if you haven't worked with the existing code to know where the issues are?
most of the standards bodies are moving towards a 5-year cycle to minimize the frequency of changes to a user.  if that were the case here, we could have had a 2 year window to learn the new code prior to proposing changes, then they could have their 3 year review and approval process.  there is likely to be not that much changed in ibc 09, since many of the standards group won't issue a new edition until 2010 after their last one in 2005.
this link does a nice job explaining the changes.
i longer cycle seems better to me assuming that astm, aci, etc etc all use a longer cycle and try to coordinate them so that they correspond. as a testing firm, we're forced to buy all applicable standards, testing methods, references etc and the costs are outrageous when there's a new astm every year because three words are changed...but you can't tell that until you buy the thing. then if/when you ever get in to a technical argument, you have folks using older/newer this or that as the basis for the argument. add in the fact that many architects/engineers use the same specs from 10+ years back and the discussions become very convoluted and you end up fighting over technicalities instead of the actual issue.
i seriously doubt i will see dramatic improvements on the topic because it is like killing the cash cow.
msucog
simply put it is a money making machine. i go back to the late 70's using the boca code. in the 100's of buildings i did through the 80's and 90's there was rarely a code issue. today its all about selling new codes.
cap4000, not sure it's about selling new codes as it may be about researching for new codes.  with large on-line resources, i don't think anyone is making a mint on publishing or epublishing codes.
regards,
qshake
eng-tips forums:real solutions for real problems really quick.

the problem with such a long revision time is that an error in the code takes an extremely long time to correct.  if the new code is only out a few months before the revisions for the next cycle are due, it will easily be 6 years before the code is corrected, 8-9 years before it is adopted by most jurisdictions.
take the sign industry for example.  asce 7-05 jacked up the wind loads by over 50% on signs as compared to most us building codes that have ever existed.  it took some doing, but many in the sign industry got together to fund research in an attempt to revise these loads.  this is not cheap to do.  so while those in the industry are getting hit with huge structure cost increases, they are also spending money on this research.  when will this all pay off?  probably not until 2018!  it is too late to get the results into asce 7-10, so they have to wait for asce 7-15.  that spec will not be in ibc until 2015 or 2018.
although i agree that it is getting ridiculous having to buy codes and updates constantly and having to know the prior 3 versions for locations that haven't adopted the new versions, at least if a supplement comes out that contradicts the current code by correcting an error a building official may be more likely to approve a variance from that code.  now that opportunity is lost.  
   
in other countries amendments are issued if the error is deemed significant enough, rather than waiting for the next edition.
is this not the case in the us?
it varies from code-publishing organization to organization or even committee to committee or code to code.
there's no national policy on amendments vs. interims vs. whatever.
hg