huangyhg

use of more current codes for shop drawings
how do others handle delegated engineered shop drawings done for more current codes than the structure was permitted under? it seems reasoable to use more current codes but in some situations the required design criteria has actually been reduced.
it doesn't feel prudent to reject them.
i'd might exercise caution when "mixing and matching" different codes. as you're probably well aware, there are different caviats, test methods, etc. associated with each version of the codes. most situations would probably have little effect...until it goes to court (in the unfortunate situation that something bad happens) and then someone will be hung out to dry. and if it's no big deal, then it should be no big deal to provide the appropriate details from the older codes. maybe they could provide a letter stating that the drawings satisfy both codes (if that is true) or explain what the difference is between them.
as usual, the eor and the owner should be notified of this before it is done and allowed to make the final determination. it may be not big deal, but why should the contractor's, subcontractor's fabricator be making that decision?
i see that happen a lot when code editions change in mid project and later portions are being designed under the new code. i mostly see this in fire alarm (nfpa 72), sprinkler (nfpa 13), and truss drawings (asce 7). in july, 2007, ohio went to the 2006 ibc but projects applied for before that date were still under the 2003 ibc. truss drawings designed per 7-02 or 7-05 would be acceptable, since:
obc 106.7.1 design criteria. an alternative engineered design shall conform to the intent of the provisions of this code and shall provide an equivalent level of quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and safety. materials, equipment, or components shall be designed and installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions.
however, if the newer code relaxed something, i typically require the item be adjudicated.

don phillips
i agree with cvg - the eor should be notified and a request made that the eor state in writing if the newer code providions still meet the applicable code provisions.
the eor does not have the right to blow off the applicable code (as adopted by the governing jurisdiction) and simply go with the newer code.

note that in some cases, the codes or standards themselves specify when they become effective (asme b&pv, api-650). the problem in these cases is that addendums are issued on a page-replacement basis with a loose-leaf format, so once you incorporate the addendum, you no longer have the "old" code.
there was another post on this topic a good while back. as was pointed out there, the city will specify a date of ibc/ubc to be used. in chapter 35, ibc specifies a particular date of asce 7 to be used. then the asce 7 specifies a particular date of other standards to be used. the problem is that each standard specifies other standards that are several years older, so going down two or three layers also means going back 10 years.
motivation to use the newer standard might include uniformity of designs, use of computer programs referencing the newer editions, or clarity of newer editions.

__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言：前进吧，你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]