Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Re[2]: 97 UBC Adoption date - 2000 I

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Ted Beckwith wrote:

. > Maybe we should just skip the 2000 IBC until all the bugs are worked out.
. > Then we  if we could get the California Building Safety Commision to act
. > within 6 months of ICC's pulication of the 2003 IBC, we could be using the
. > 2003 code by 2004.
. > 
. > Ted Beckwith
. > 

I'm not sure that bugs have been worked out of the 1994 UBC, let alone the 
1997 UBC.

Because the code bodies wanted to go to a "common format," annual code change 
submittals (and corrections) to the 1994 UBC were stopped after the 1995 
submittal so that work could done to develop the 1997 UBC in the "common 
format."  As a result, massive rewriting of the code took place, and nobody 
has had the opportunity to address corrections.  Then, it was decided to 
change to the IBC, and, again, massive changes are being made without being 
adequately studied.  Any time massive changes are made, serious errors can 
creep in.

I think that we are rushing too fast to change to an "International" building 
code.  The impression that I have of the title, "IBC 2000" is that it is a 
public relations term more than anything else.  That and other gimmicky 
sounding phrases such as, "performance based design" make me grimace.  The 
only truly "performance based design" that I am aware of is what is practiced 
by the commercial aircraft industry:  Do a structural analysis and design 
based on that analysis; Build a prototype; Test the prototype to destruction; 
If it doesn't perform as the analysis indicated, redesign it; Build another 
prototype; Test it to destruction, etc., etc., until the performance of a 
prototype satisfies the requirements of the design criteria and then go into 

A. Roger Turk, P.E.
Tucson, Arizona