RE: ASCE 7-05 Errors

I just started going through the IBC-2006 in anticipation of its use here in California next year.  So far, I am not impressed.  AT ALL.  From what I’ve looked at so far, the IBC is a rather sloppy document and surprisingly, in many areas, much more lax than UBC-97 ….  I haven’t even gotten into the structural stuff and I see all kinds of poor phrasing and awkward syntax, errors of omission, unreferenced requirements and other stuff that will just make my life a living hell trying to interpret in unison with a B.O..  No wonder the State of California balked at this document the first go-around. 

 

I also see why you guys were complaining about cost.  Seems the IBC simply references an alphabet soup of other documents and simply says, “…shall comply with ASCE-7…” or AITC or ASTM or whatever.  Meanwhile, the State of CA has two pdf documents totaling over 300 pages of amendments.  Entire chapters are omitted and re-written.

 

Yikes.

 

---

From: Garner, Robert [mailto:rgarner@moffattnichol.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 10:22 AM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: ASCE 7-05 Errors

 

ASCE Page 83, Section 7.7.1, Last Sentence: "This density shall also be used to determine h sub b by dividing p sub s by lambda."

 

p sub s is the sloped roof snow load.  They should also include the flat roof snow load, p sub f.

 

This apparently got by all those errata.

 

With all due respect, I still consider the errata excessive for a Design Code document.  And, yes, we strive for 100% accuracy in our office.  Errors are not treated lightly here.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Bob Garner, S.E.

 

R. Garner

Moffatt & Nichol

Tel.:  (619) 220-6050

Fax.: (619) 220-6055

e-mail: rgarner@moffattnichol.com