2015 Issue

57 hidden somewhere deep in the overhead multiplier. Determining the benefits of a new code is a subjective endeavor, but the following question ought to be asked: If we do not adopt a new code and instead continue with the one currently in place, will the public still be adequately protected, and will the designs still result in economically feasible buildings? For example, I do not have any heartburn about the buildings that I designed using the 1997 UBC. Whatever improvement there has been in the codes since then, it has not been significant enough to cause concern about those previously designed buildings. I would ask anyone claiming to be concerned: Are you going back to the owners of the buildings that you designed under the 1997 UBC to tell them that they need to have their structures upgraded? Another issue is the academic research that creeps into the codes. While research is certainly necessary and vital, many researchers seem to depend upon getting code changes incorporated in order to justify their work. It is not clear that they adequately consider whether such modifications are really improvements. Too few of those involved in the code development process ask the right ques- tions. If a proposed provision indicates a 3% change in a calculated capacity, is that significant enough to justify a code change? How does it relate to the level of uncertainty still present on the demand side? Are the building codes supposed to ensure that the behavior of structures is accurately modeled with ultimate precision? Or are they intended to allow engineers to economically design safe, cost- effective structures? How many different ways can we calculate 20 psf wind pressure on a building? There may be other reasons offered for the short code cycles, such as unintended consequences arising from previous changes. Upon serious reflection, however, I think we would find that most proposed changes can wait a few more years until the next code is published. For critical issues that cannot wait, addenda and supple- ments could be utilized. My questions to those involved in the development of new codes and design standards are as follows: If the code that you are now proposing to be adopted is so much better than the one that we are currently using, why will it be obsolete in just three years? Is the 2012 edition so problematic that we cannot wait until 2018 to replace it? If so, why did we adopt it? Are the codes we design to really that bad? Five year cycles would be better. What would be best? Do I hear six or eight? David Pierson, S.E., SECB (davep@arwengineers.com ) is a Vice President at ARW Engineers in Ogden, Utah. This article originally appeared in the May 2013 edition of Structure Magazine, published by the National Council of Structural Engineer Associations (NCSEA), and is re-printed with permission. SHAPING the quality of life infrastructure professionals Civil Engineering Construction Management Funding Procurement Materials Testing GIS  Surveying Structural Engineering Environmental Services 800-748-5275 www.jonesanddemille.com • Hydrology • Hydraulics • Drinking Water • Irrigation Water • Wastewater / Water Reuse • Storm Water • Flood Control • Water Rights • Water Conservation • Water Quality • Environmental Permitting Providing Trusted Water Engineering Solutions Since 1974 Offices in Salt Lake City American Fork • Park City • Brigham City (801) 566-5599 www.hansenallenluce.com