asce 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 confusion

huangyhg

asce 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 confusion
the florida building code (2001/2002 revisions) references "asce 7" - thanks a lot.  are any of them 7-05, 7-02, 7-98 acceptable?  only the latest?  what are most engineers using?  is there a consensus on this that i don't know about?
same question - international building code.
thanks
the general rule is to always use the latest unless something specifically calls for particular version.
ibc 2003, chapter 35 "referenced standards" specifies asce 7-02
ibc 2000, chapter 35 "referenced standards" specifies asce 7-98
i'd have to disagree with jstephen.  
in structural engineering it is very important (law) to use the current code incorporated by the governing code agency, whether its state, city, etc.
if in doubt contact the local (usually city) code official for the proper code reference.
note that the 04 fbc--not the 01--is now the governing code in florida.  it references asce 7-02.
arneg, you aren't disagreeing with me.  read the second half of my response, which is exactly what you are saying.
sliderule, you bring up a a very interesting point.  i see in chapter 35, it lists these standards and "the effective date".  what exactly does an "effective date" mean?  the obvious reading is that a referenced standard that had an "effective date" five years prior could have been used in conjunction with that building code for those five years prior as well, even if the building code from those years didn't list it yet- which implies usage is not limited to the year listed.  the wording used in chapter 35 doesn't specifically limit the usage to that year, and it's really not clear if that's the intent or not.  if that is the intent, they probably need to actually state it somewhere.
by way of contrast, in thumbing through my asme b&pv code, i find a table titled "year of acceptable edition of referenced standards in this division".  here, the intent is quite clear, to reference a particular year, no later, no earlier.
in my asce-7-02, section 9.14.2.1 lists the asme b&pv code "including addenda through 2000" as a concensus standard to be followed to the extent referenced.  but the asme code itself mandates when sections become effective (6 months after issuance of addenda, with annual addenda), and you simply don't have the option of using an older version, regardless of what version ibc or asce list in their references.  i would be curious to know how many of the other references in chapter 35 have similar provisions.  particularly in the case of something like a "safety code for elevators", it would seem ill-advised to insist on an outdated version.
a follow-up regarding the florida building code:
the original fbc 2004 referenced asce 7-98 despite in many other ways being identical to the ibc 2003 (which as pointed out references asce 7-02.)
the 2005 supplement to the fbc was just recently (within the past few months) approved.  it is this supplement that revised the reference to asce 7-02.
i've always taken the ibc chapter 35 to specifically call out a particular year edition of a reference.  i think this is evident because currently, all these code/spec writing bodies have begun to cross-correlate their texts to better correspond to the ibc codes.  in fact, aci even changed their publishing years to better align with the ibc issue years.  
look in the referenced standards section of the fbc-04. i've been down this road- just follow the standard that is referenced in the back of the florida code that your project is under.
i'm finishing up ca work on a project in florida using fbc 2001.
"the general rule is to always use the latest unless something specifically calls for particular version." - not a general rule in my book- that's dangerous in my opinion; especially if you have more than one engineer (experienced or not) working on the same project.
i would recommend not arbitrarily mixing and matching codes and standards because you're too lazy to follow the one referenced in the specs and cd's- and follow thru with associated references (for blatantly obvious reasons). perfect example -> 1.4d+1.7l vs. 1.2d+1.6l - so a "smarty pants" engineer getting the loads for a load take-down would conviently use load combos from one code and the other "smarty pants" engineer designing the memebers would use strength reduction factors (knowingly, or not) from another. the scary and obvious part here is when they don't talk or document. the important aspect of following the governing code and referenced standards to a tee is that it covers you- and your colleagues; especially from yourselves. if you follow the code and version, you don't open up the chance to really screw up.
well, jen, it's not my intent to be lazy, smarty pants, or dangerous.  however, you also seem to be overlooking the second half of that sentence, "unless something specifically calls for a particular version".
the flip side of this issue is that i have seen contract documents and design calculations referencing standards and building codes that were twenty five years or more out of date.  you can go through some cash trying to keep up to date on these things, and if you don't need them often, it's easy to get behind.
while the original question asked about fbc & asce-7, i really do think that you'd run into problems of logical consistency trying to apply this all the way down the line with those references in chapter 35.  where a code references standards, and those reference other standards, and those reference other standards, you lose a year or two at each layer, and at some point, something's got to give.  (does the asce-7 ever reference ibc, by the way?  if so, it would be an older version than the one that referenced asce-7...)  i see on the icc website that you can submit requests for committee interpretations; this would be a good one for that.
asce 7 never references "up" to the model codes...its always in the other direction.
chapter 35 of the ibc (don't know about the fbc) directly references specific documents that have specific issue dates.
in section 102 of the ibc it states:  "the codes and standards referenced in this code shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference.  where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply.
i don't think there's really any doubt or logical inconsistency involved when you use a required effective date standard referenced in ch. 35.  they should be used if a jurisdiction has adopted a specific code with a chapter 35 included and using "other" standards with different effective dates than shown in ch. 35 does result in logical inconsistencies.