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]
     A few counterpoints to Roger Turk's discussion:
     We will be changing from the 1994 UBC to the 1997 UBC, not the 2000 
     IBC.  The change from the 1997 UBC to the 2000 IBC will not be as 
     drastic because much of the 1997 UBC was approved with the 2000 IBC 
     proposals in mind.
     There are a lot of seismic changes, most of which come from the 1994 
     and 1997 NEHRP Provisions, most of which were explained in the 1996 
     SEAOC Blue Book Appendix C.  The background to all of the seismic 
     changes has been available to interested parties.  The 1994 and 1997 
     NEHRP Provisions have complete commentaries that are free from FEMA.  
     The SEAOC Blue Book is free to SEAOC members.
     The IBC process has been an open process.  Any interested party could 
     have obtained a free copy of each draft from ICBO (and probably the 
     other model code organizations also).  The drafts had clear procedures 
     for submitting proposals.  Those of us who submitted proposals were 
     sent a copy of all proposals and were invited to participate in the 
     approval meetings.  The process for IBC changes appears to be every 
     bit as slow and deliberate as the UBC code process.
     If we don't like the 1997 UBC or 2000 IBC, maybe it's because we chose 
     not to participate in the process.
     Rick Drake, SE
     Fluor Daniel, Irvine

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: ICBO California Legislative Alert
Author:  Roger Turk <73527.1356(--nospam--at)> at fdinet
Date:    3/29/99 4:18 PM

California is again at the forefront!
Changing from the 1994 UBC to the IBC 2000 is proceeding too quickly.  
Changes, which aren't completely understood, are being made to proposals that 
weren't completely understood, and no one knows what we are getting.
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 "Working Draft" of the IBC 2000 was a mishmash combination of the three 
model codes, the intent of which wasn't really known or used outside the 
areas of their jurisdiction.  Changes have been made to that mishmash 
resulting in a greater mishmash.  Adopting the IBC 2000 without a work-in 
period is going to result in disasters.  We know what happens to 
understanding when isolated chapters of the UBC have been rewritten such as 
provisions being left out or reworded in a confusing manner.  Now it is 
proposed to rewrite the entire Code.
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 format.  
Then, changes were made to the 1994 edition to not only have a common format, 
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.
A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona