# Thanks for Posting Free Codes



## Alias (Dec 22, 2010)

Just a big "thank you" to everyone who has posted links to free code sites.

I just found out what my budget is for next year and there is not enough in it for me to buy a set of code books and do any training, certs, etc.  The budget crunch has arrived in the high desert. :shock:  I want to thank the State of Kalifornia, the governator, and the county (who has no money).  Crappity doo dah........S**t surely does roll down hill.

I just hope next year is better.

Sue, lost is the frontier :roll:


----------



## mark handler (Dec 22, 2010)

Just think of all that free time on your hands without the Trailer Parks.....


----------



## Alias (Dec 22, 2010)

Yeah, just in time for the new code cycle........:mrgreen::lol:

Sue, 'I'm on a low budget, what did you say?, I'm on a low budget.......'


----------



## dhengr (Dec 22, 2010)

I’m new here, is there any chance that one of you regulars could post those links for the free codes here, all in one listing?  In fact, archiving these on this forum might be a nice recourse for all of us, if it didn’t cause copyright problems.  I have a fair handle on the intent of many parts of the bldg. codes,  after 45 yrs. of structural design on a variety of different structures, foundations, and the like, in all of the various bldg. materials, but I don’t have the latest editions of the codes either.  And, it seems that many of your issues and questions have to do with the latest ed. wording or fine print; it would be helpful to be able to see the real wording or table and footnotes, before I start lipping off.  I can usually explain it if I can see it and think on it awhile, and I’m not embarrassed to say I just don’t know on that one, we’ll have to do some digging.

Some of you guys probably even have connections with the ICC, maybe a vote or chance to speak at a meeting on some issues, or some such.  And, It seems to me that one of the things you should all be screaming like hell about is that they slow down a bit on their production of new editions, so WE can all become productive again, once we have enough time to learn and digest and start really using the edition we have before the newest version comes out.  Code writing should not be an end in itself and should not be the cottage industry it has become; they should not be driving the entire process, we should, the intention should be to produce better, safer, structures.  If we find something seriously wrong, everyone who bought a code gets an addendum, not a new edition in five volumes and three thousand pages, with new formatting and numbering, just to make things really fun.

Start with your own bldg. dept. and city council or your county board, then your state legislature, and just don’t adopt the new edition, let them sit with 100,000 printed copies, unsold.  If there is really nothing new, of real importance, which actually leads to improvement in building designs, why are we going to adopt this new edition; give our inspectors, the contractors and the engineers and archs. a chance to learn to use the version they just bought, let them get some thumb prints on the pages, so they can find things.  A good share of what is happening now is absolute craziness, and not to OUR or the building’s improvement.  When I started I could design any structure I felt competent to design, within my training and experience.  I had a 1.75" x5.5" x 8.5" code book, which actually had the AISC, ACI, and NDS codes, essentially reprinted within its covers.  But, it took some professional experience and judgement to design a structure.  God, we’re preaching green design and deforesting the world printing new code editions faster than the petroleum based ink can dry.  STOP IT.


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 22, 2010)

http://www.inspectpa.com/phpbb/showthread.php?3105-Idea-for-online-references-quot-topic-quot-.

A permanent topic for e-codes would be good. Until then, the sticky posts for e-codes are in some of the threads. Find 'em and save 'em to favorites.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 22, 2010)

http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/


----------



## dhengr (Dec 23, 2010)

Jobsaver...   It seem you beat me to the punch a few months ago.  I’m not real sure I even know what sticky posts are, I’m a bit of a PC, internet, and forum neophyte, so you gotta go easy on me on that account.  Although, I’m not such a beginner in the building and structures business, or in engineering in general.  The problem I have with codes these days is that they are being foisted on us faster than we can possibly pay for them and learn to understand and use them properly.  At one point I was amassing thousands of dollars worth of different codes that I used once, for a few hours, on one job, and then never looked at again.  What a waste of trees, plus the agrivation, and there isn’t much evidence that we are really producing better structures.  Then I have the situation that I really should have the latest edition of AISC, ACI, NDS, just because I am a Structural Engineer, but I need several other editions too because the governing version of the IBC, or whatever other base code, sites these other editions.  I have taken to trying to beg, steal or barrow some of these codes when I only need them for one job, or having my clients supply them.

MarkH....   Thanks a million, all I can say is WOW, that’s a real collection, it took me nearly an hour to read em all.  But, that is sorta what I had in mind.  Actually, it took me what seemed like ten minutes to download about 700 pages of one of them, just to see what it was and to take a quick first look.  Although, I still find it easier to have a hard copy that I can thumb through, underline, and put in my own page markers on.  Thanks again.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 23, 2010)

Thats the problem with the codes, standards and associations, their major revenue source is publishing codes and if there are no changes there is no reason to purchase hence no revenue.

I vote for a 5 year cycle


----------



## Alias (Dec 23, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Thats the problem with the codes, standards and associations, their major revenue source is publishing codes and if there are no changes there is no reason to purchase hence no revenue.I vote for a 5 year cycle


mtlogcabin -

I'll second that!  Five years is a good number, long enough to get familiar enough to be able to make a decision on what needs to be changed realistically.

Sue, in the high desert


----------



## dhengr (Dec 23, 2010)

I don’t have a vote, but I’d vote for sever or eight year cycles, maybe more, so we really got to know and understand the codes, and how to use and interpret them.  It takes a few years for all of you guys to just figure them out, just what does the ICC mean by this, and during that time each guy kinda has his own interpretation and confusion ensues.  I would also like to see the various reference codes like AISC, ACI, NDS, be brought into cycle so the new edition of the IBC refers to the same year’s editions of these other codes.  Then provide for simple, short, addendums if and when a serious issue or error comes to light.  While I appreciate the need for revenue for the different code agencies, they would need less revenue if they produced less useless crap, and life would be easier for us too.  Frequent production of evermore complex codes, which don’t offer significant improvements in anything important, as a means of job creation, should not be an end in itself.  It just makes life tough on us worker bees.  Some of you guys have a vote, refuse to adopt the next edition, and let them sit with it; you don’t have a lot of buildings falling down because the current code is defective, do you?


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 24, 2010)

I support a seven year cycle. Six to review, vote, edit and publish, and the seventh to study, prepare, and teach the private sector before adopting as laws.

The three years saved by doubling the code cycle, for ICC employees, to be spent on a construction site mingling with "worker bees", performing labor, and constructing viable solutions.


----------



## rogerpa (Dec 25, 2010)

ICC employees don't write the code. There is nothing in the code that wasn't put there by by a building inspector/official.


----------

