To: "SEAOC Newsletter" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: Re: Seismic Upgrade ..... Appeal to those who created the code
From: Christopher Wright <chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com>
Date: Wed, 5 May 99 10:42:43 -0500
>What do you think should be done to clarify the situation? What
>suggestions do you
>have for improving the code approval process? How do you propose effecting a
>compromise? I am sure that I am not the only one interested in your ideas.
I'm real curious how additions and revisions get incorporated into
building codes. Are changes subject to peer or industry review before
becoming part of the Code? Who proposes changes--are revisions generated
internally or in response to the professional or industrial requests? Are
there mechanisms for getting official interpretations or for obtaining
rulings on special provisions?
I've used a lot of codes and specifications, but I don't think I've ever
run into the level of acrimony that has shown up in regard to building
codes recently. With pressure vessel and piping codes (among others) the
revision process really seems a lot more orderly with plenty of room for
peer review and comment--the ASME Code does in fact contain some crap,
but it's usually self-consistent crap and the committee structure has
ways of working it out pretty quickly.
Christopher Wright P.E. |"They couldn't hit an elephant from
chrisw(--nospam--at)skypoint.com | this distance" (last words of Gen.
___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)