Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: ICBO California Legislative Alert

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I have to echo Roger's sentiments on the IBC.  I got a copy of the "Final
Draft" of the IBC.  I am reluctant to read any document that I can't lift. 
>From the comments I'm seeing on UBC '97 seismic provisions, I wonder if
anyone can "get it right".

Is there any hope of "progressing toward the past"?  Even tho' we can
generate numbers to incredible precision, are we really getting a better
design -- especially when we are trying to hit a moving target?  Could it
be that "best available technology" is no better than slide-rule-accuracy?

I confidently predict a field day for attorneys, and foul weather for

My 2 cents,

Fountain E. Conner, P.E.
Gulf Breeze, Fl. 32561

> From: Roger Turk <73527.1356(--nospam--at)>
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)
> Subject: ICBO California Legislative Alert
> Date: Monday, March 29, 1999 3:18 PM
> Yea!
> California is again at the forefront!
> There is no reason to proceed so quickly in adopting an "International 
> Building Code," which isn't International and probably won't even be 
> National.  The only reason to adopt an "IBC 2000" so quickly is a Madison

> Avenue, public relations reason for its catchy sounding name.
> The last semi-stable UBC is the 1994 UBC.  For the most part, changes for

> that code were made slowly and with considerably more study than is being

> devoted to the IBC, even with that edition going to the common code
> Then, changes were made to the 1994 edition to not only have a common
> but to progress to a common code and these changes weren't adequately 
> studied.  Witness the questions that appear on this list concerning the 
> meaning of 1997 UBC provisions.
> STOP IBC 2000 NOW!
> A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
> Tucson, Arizona