Who here strictly adhered to the provisions of the code, who bends them, and who considers them inadequate for a situation. If you please, elaborate on the whys of your logic too. Thanks for your input in advance
I generally use the code as the minimum, and occasionally go beyond. Often items are not covered by the code and I use other codes as a guideline.
Iāve not had anything fall down yet or any significant issues in 50 years; I donāt plan to change.
Dik
My experience is similar to Dikās. Use as minimum and go from there.
I get frustrated by the ambiguity and variable interpretations. They should leave code writing to the technical guys and get the politics out of it.
Havenāt had anything fall down yet either. I donāt deal with seismic very oftenā¦just wind!
I used to, and to a lesser extent now, understand the reason for the inclusion in the codes. This was my āguiding lightā. There are so many issues, today, that itās difficult to keep trackā¦ The economy of construction has only marginally improvedā¦ itās the system chosen and not a ātight designā that mainly determines costā¦ Iāve known that for 50 years.
I think most changes to the code are for āsellingā codes and not for improvements in engineering. Code bodies have developed a government model and not an engineering one.
Dik
I think most changes to the code are for āsellingā codes and not for improvements in engineering. Code bodies have developed a government model and not an engineering one. Dik
This must be the single most frustrating thing.
I do at times find prescriptively following the code impractical. As a specific example, in canadian code, we are required to have 4 anchor bolt for any baseplate, even if there are no bending or uplift on the bolt. My understanding is that this is done to ensure stability even during construction
This becomes rather a problem when i comes to corner columns on foundation walls, where trying to fit 4 anchor bolts for the sake of following the bolt is rather impactical and sometimes unsafe for a L-shaped baseplate (edge distance). People in my office have all sorts of ways to creatively work around this, but I find this rather silly.
Hopefully I am not highjacking the thread, but whatās everyoneās general approach when running into prescriptive parts of the code that are not practical?
Youāre not hijacking the threadā¦ donāt worry, if someoneās upset, they will let you know.
The anchor rod requirement is a copy of the OSHA requirement, in case youāre curiousā¦ trying to solve a problem thatās not there. Used to be that the contractor was responsible for the means and methods of construction.
Dik
I could be wrong, but isnāt the 4 anchor requirement in the US an OSHA requirement (Not AISC). The exception given by OSHA is if it is a āpostā not a ācolumnā one can use less than 4 anchors.
Where:
Column means a load-carrying vertical member that is part of the primary skeletal framing system. Columns do not include posts.
Post means a structural member with a longitudinal axis that is essentially vertical, that: (1) weighs 300 pounds or less and is axially loaded (a load presses down on the top end), or (2) is not axially loaded, but is laterally restrained by the above member. Posts typically support stair landings, wall framing, mezzanines and other substructures."
Either way, I agree it is a silly requirement at certain times. I have seen it ignored based on āengineering judgmentā in the past.
1 Like
Edited answer and you are correct, sir.
Dik
Thereās a bit of an outā¦
From the current CSA S-16, āColumns shall be fitted with at least four anchor rods. When four non-collinear anchor rods for erection safety are not feasible, special precautions shall be taken.ā
Just added:
Iāve just modified my Project Notes to include that the Contractor shall take āspecial precautionsā to maintain column stability during erection.
This takes advantage of the exclusion clause.
Dik
Iāve thought about Mikeās question since it was posted and what, if anything to say. For our generating stations the big issue is that live loads are a real wild card. We (owner) together with our consultant establish the overall criteria for a station based on the type info contained in ASCE 7ā¦ importance category, wind, seismic, etc. Also outline general codes to follow, such as ACI for concrete or AISC (specifically ASD in the 1990ās) for structural steel.
Beyond that, most requirements are based on our long-term (decades) experience at plants. This would be some result in some that are unusualā¦ leaving our consultants scratching their heads. Some examples:
-
In operating area, slope all slabs on grade at least 2% for drainage to built-in trenches, etc. (Operations hates walking in standing waterā¦ no complaints about walking on sloped floors).
Also heavy concentrated load requirement for slabs on grade (may need to put the outrigger for a truck crane on a slab for some unexpected future reason). -
All structural steel to be weldable (allow for future modifications). Also, (in the 1990ās) ASTM A-36 steel only (for future modifications, no question about grade of steel used).
-
For elevated steel grating, a single heavy uniform live load requirement, even if ASCE suggests a lower value. Also, a heavy concentrated load requirement and no serrated grating. (to allow easier rolling of heavily loaded wheeled maintenance carts without leaving āfurrowsā in the grating where wheels bent the bearing bars).
Overall, this work was normally way outside the intent of building codesā¦ we just ignored them, with concurrence of building officials.
Concur will all, except, max slope is 1-1/2%ā¦ no problems with āhollowsā to catch rainwater (or ice). Switch yards, transformer yards, and dead-end structures are some of my favourite.
Dik