2005 AISC Spec

[bjb]

I know this has been discussed in a previous thread, but I want to continue the discussion. In New York State, we just adopted the 2003 IBC, which does not reference the 2005 AISC spec. Based on an email from the state, it seems that if we contact the local building official and get their approval we can use the new spec. I am waiting for confirmation on this.

I am curious how other engineers are addressing this issue in states that still reference the 2003IBC or even the 2000 IBC.

The reason for going with the ICC Codes was to get as much of the country as possible using the same code. However, because different states are using different editions of the code, we may not be able to use the same design standards. My company does work all over the country. If we do a project in a jurisdiction that has adopted the 2006 IBC we will have to use the 2005 AISC spec, but here in NYS we can't unless we jump through some additional hoops.

 

[JAE]

We try very hard to first find the governing adopted code (such as the IBC 2003) and then stick to the particular specifications, standards, etc. that are referenced in Chapter 35 of the IBC.

Doing otherwise, you are essentially using a standard that has not been legally adopted by the governing jurisdiction.

Having said that, there may be times when your engineering judgement knows that using a later edition of say the AISC spec, would be more conservative or more safe.

The IBC require MINIMUM standards, so if you know a later spec is "better" then you can use it. You are still legally bound to meet the minimum standards of the actual code.

One example is the Northridge earthquake changed much of the AISC seismic specifications so continuing to use them would be putting public at risk - thus the updated (amended) seismic spec could be used.

 

[271828]

LOL, timely topic. I am the structural reviewer for a couple of jurisdictions. We use the 2003 IBC, but will adopt the 2006 soon. Just yesterday, I received a set of drawings. The architect listed the 2003 IBC, but the structural engineer and metal building mfr used the 2006. Think I should bust 'em? Just joking of course!! I'd be a total jerk if I gave them a hard time for using guidance based on more modern research.

That being said, one must know what he's doing to mix and match editions. Load factors could be different for example.

 

[bjb]

I received confirmation from the state that if I contact the local building official and they accept it, I can use the 2005 AISC spec and still be in compliance with the code. Yet another hoop to jump through here in NY.

At the rate things happen here, we won't adopt the 2006 IBC until 2010 or 2011, but by then I'm sure there will be a new AISC spec and a 14th edition Steel Manual that we won't be able to use in NY without extra hurdles.

It also depends on how you define minimum standards. The 2005 spec is technically more accurate than the 1989 AISC spec, so therefore you could argue that a design according to the 2005 spec has a higher standard of care. On the other hand, beam sizes from the 1989 spec will be greater assuming that servicability doesn't govern.

From the perspective of using best practices, I think we should be using the most current version of the AISC spec. My concern is that if for whatever reason a project ends up in court, you could be hung out to dry by an opposing lawyer by using a version of a reference standard not listed in chapter 35.

Despite the fact that much of the USA has adopted the ICC codes, we're still far from all being on the same page.

 

[csd72]

bjb,

I didnt think that new york was adopting the IBC until 2008? Do you have a reference or article to confirm this?

csd

 

[bjb]

The NY code has been based on the 2000IBC since 2003. You can go to the new york state department of state website, and you can also go to the ICC webiste to check on the status of ICC code adoption. In january, use of the NY code based on the 2003 IBC will become mandatory.

 

[csd72]

Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you meant new york city.

csd