By the Book

Before people begin the "holier than thou" approach, code is a combination of ethics and morals. Things which people think they are perfect in and are not include, but aren't limited do.

• Getting extra change at a store where you feel you were paying too much int he first place
• Jaywalking
• Lying to cover yourself, even to your kids
• Speeding, and justifying it because you were keeping with the traffic flow
• Blowing through a red light
• Stealing, be it candy at the cafeteria or some staples, printing on the company printer for your own use - still stealing
  

It depends on what you're doing and who it's for.

I think you mentioned that you're an HVAC guy. If you're doing something for a paying customer, yes, I think everything you touch should be done to code.

If you're helping a buddy out on the weekend, you will still use your knowledge to make sure everything is safe and will work properly, but the local code may take a back seat. No biggie.

You might be surprised to see just how many electrical, plumbing and HVAC things I come across that are violations!

Actually the various building codes allow exceptions for engineered designs (They will have differnt requirements for the engineering of systems to use as assumptions and criteria/parameters for design). So my question is, are they actually violations or engineered designs?

If you don't have an engineering stamp on it you had best stay with in the codes or risk losing your license or being fined, a red tag and/or a law suit that you will lose big (plus you'd risk losing any capacity for receiving insurance/bond for future work or huge rates at least). If it is a stamped design, then document the design process/calculations, assumption, and show that it meets or exceeds performance standards/expectations.

What gets stamped and what ends up on the job aren't identical. Blueprints aren't 3D just yet. When you actually erect something problems show up...that was really the focus of my question. I wasn't suggesting that the flaw was intentional in the design, but rather the finished product. When money is involved and deadlines are being pressured you'd be surprised what ends up happening regardless of how well the planning stage went.

That was what I was talking about, the finished product should reflect the design and intent of the designer if it is a engineered design. So it is the contractors responsibility to ask questions, and receive documented responses if he believes there is a issue of constructability in conformance with design or a conflict. BTW such language is almost always spelled out in contract documents for a engineered project.

If it isn't engineered, then the default should be the code as these are minimum standards for construction without engineering (or sometimes they explicitly require engineering in some cases).

You would likely be surprised the failed construction projects I have had to investigate, and just how many different contractors decided to curt corner to a point that the compounded effect destroyed millions $ of project work. Insurance comapnies do not want to bond or insure contractors who like to cut corners, the State likes to fine them or take their licenses, and agencies will sometimes remove them from a qualifed contractors list. I understand that time and material/labor are all money lost to contractors, and cutting corners is just increasing risk and liability they hoppe to defer on someone else later. Most contractors cut some corners, or discuss it with the engineers who make such decisions. It is better to try avoid cutting to big or critical of corners or too many., depending on the level of risk you ar willing to accept and the regard you have for your reputation.

Most (all?) of the codes I've had to deal with have had either the force of law (e.g., compliance with NEC required by MSHA (Mine Health and Safety Act) (OSHA, also, iirc)) or the "force" of an inspector. On a very few occasions, I've violated code intentionally for what I thought were good reasons, but sought a variance to do so.

(In those few cases, I did get the variance.)

Where codes don't have the force of law or an inspector, I guess I might grant my own variance if I thought it was appropriate. The jobs I worked on all required a professional engineer's stamp. If I was not the professional engineer of record, I would discuss it with that engineer.

How often do you ignore the code in your business?

And, do you do it to save money? Is your way better? Is it safer?

And who benefits from the savings, you, or your customer?

Codes are there for a reason. Mostly to TRY to keep unscrupulous contractors/tradesmen from bilking customers, or worse yet, killing them.

Having said that, I run up against regulations, statutes and codes that I think are overkill all the time. That doesn't give me license to ignore them.

Let me look at it from a slightly different perspective. You are referring to code. True everywhere, but not so passionately outside USA/Canada. Or at least in my country.

Here we are paranoid about standards. IEC specifically. IMHO, the IEC specifies minimum standards expected by any equipment. i, as a designer, would strive to exceed them. And have succeeded. Far superior people in USA, Europe, Japan, China...etc. have actually gone so far ahead in technology that they have caused IEC standards to be rewritten !

i would strive to exceed the code, without compromising it in its spirit.

I've had two experiences (one with a client and one with a contractor) that requested a change that would have been violations (both for monetary reasons). Once I told them they could go ahead with the changes once I had a letter from them accepting liability for knowingly violating a code, they backed off. (Of course, I wouldn't have let it happen anyhow, but I figured it'd be easier for them to swallow if they thought is was their choice)

As for my standard procedure, if my name is on it, then there are no corners cut (not knowingly anyhow).

Some parts of Standards and codes can be a little 'gray' at times either due to being open to interpretation, or just plain silly. Some are just plain unusable in the real world (our main electrical wiring standard had to be pulled completely because of this).

Anyone here who has ever been involved in a standards meeting for a review of a standard or creation of a new one will know that one of the main driving forces are manufacturers trying to modify the standard to give themselves a competitive edge.

The 'gray' areas in standards and codes allow some 'wiggle' room in many cases allowing you to do something the code or standard did not exactly intend. Generally this is OK as long as you can show that your implementation exceeds the requirements stated in the standard or code (and the code or standard allows this).

I was involved in one example where we ignored part of the standard that was wrong and did something else that was far better, but we had to prove to the associated standards authority that what we were doing was correct and add a special note into our findings to indicate that we were deviating from the standard and why.

I agree, GA.

As a structural engineer, I complied with the AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings although it disclaims liability for structures design in accordance with it. It demands that it be used by a Professional Engineer.

See page 2.

Doesn't even have to kill people, just has to be a knowing code violation on a project funded in part with public funds. Then both the contractor and the inspector could be in jail. Of course it would have to be the right project such that there was sufficient public attention to the issues realting to the project, and some prosecutors or investigators willing or wanton to make the front page for busting corruption.

I have worked in telecommunications design for quite a few years and depending on the specific application, sometimes the standards, or code are barely sufficient if indeed they are adequate, while in other application they are gross overkill.

Because we had to build products which achieved compliance, we always designed to meet the standards, but went further where we deemed it necessary to ensure that we designed a reliable and robust product.

In most standards also there are some 'grey' areas, particularly as technology advances into areas which were never envisaged by the writers of the standards. There, we as engineers really need to earn our keep, not only where product performance is involved, but more particularly where safety is involved.

And then there is the Nanny state in which we live where a designer or manufacturer is held liable for the stupid actions of a consumer, even when they have been given multiple warnings against their final course of action!

Would that some common sense could be re-injected into the system and people deemed responsible for their own actions unless there are significant mitigating circumstances .......... Unfortunately, common sense aint so common!

Excellent comment! All of it!

Codes are generally the result of a past failure. They are continually updated because of changing materials and knowledge gained. Just because we believe a code to be overkill does not necessarily mean it is. We may not be aware of the circumstances that brought the rule about. One of my instructors once said "doing a job by the code is the worst job you can do". Anything less is illegal. Follow the code, stay safe and out of court.

Elroy