Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Re: 97 UBC Adoption date - 2000 I[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: Re: 97 UBC Adoption date - 2000 I
- From: ParkerSCal(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 19:53:19 EST
I agree that errors and omissions are likely to occur if the IBC is put together without thorough study by all concerned parties, especially structural engineers. But the world is changing rapidly and international trading and commerce are commonplace. (Had anyone in the USA even heard of ISO 10 years ago?) It will probably be left up to us (SEAOC) to ensure that the proper amendments are added to the IBC prior to adoption as code by California and local jurisdictions. (Just as the 1997 UBC has not yet been amended or adopted in California.) From what I have seen and heard of the proposed IBC 2000, we will face a difficult task if we want our building codes to maintain the current provisions for seismic design and construction. Now is the time to get involved so that we are not saddled with an inadequate code a few years from now. James Parker, P.E. Long Beach, CA
- Prev by Subject: Re: Re: 97 UBC Adoption date - 2000 I
- Next by Subject: Re: Re: 97 UBC Adoption date - 2000 IBC
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: 97 UBC Adoption date - 2000 I
- Next by thread: Clinton's Turkey!