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

RE: 1997 UBC How to request a REVISION

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dennis

The reply that you quoted was regarding Jim Sadler's concern with drift
requirements of the 1997 UBC, and how it affects the cladding systems that
he designs. It was not, in any shape or form, intended to wash our hands off
the diaphragm issues. We should continue to pursue an interim solution to
that and maybe even for Mr. Sadler's concerns. 

I still think that association membership should get more involved in the
IBC code development process. If you think that 1997 UBC is different, you
ain't seen nothing yet. 

Point of clarification: the final version of 2000 IBC is being printed and
should be available anytime. The deadline for public input to this version
is June 18, 1999. For an up-to-date schedule of the code development process
check out ICBO's site at: 

http://codes.icbo.org/ICC_Codes/Code_Development/icccycletable.html/
<http://codes.icbo.org/ICC_Codes/Code_Development/icccycletable.html/> 


Regards,
Ben Yousefi

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com [SMTP:Seaintonln(--nospam--at)aol.com]
	Sent:	Monday, May 17, 1999 11:20 AM
	To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
	Subject:	Re: 1997 UBC How to request a REVISION

	In a message dated 5/15/99 8:10:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Byainc(--nospam--at)aol.com 
	writes:

	<< If you are interested in what goes into the future codes I
suggest you get 
	 involved by reviewing the 2000 IBC and proposing code changes for
the 2003 
	 IBC which we will probably use in 2005!  >>

	Excuse me gentlemen and ladies. Have I been holucinating for the
last three 
	or four weeks or have we literally discussed this issue into the
ground. 
	I'm being facitious. My point is that why must we be redundant when
those who 
	can make change are already informed of our concerns with the past
and 
	present code related to rigid diaphragm analysis for residential
structures.

	Although Ben is well intended and suggests something we should do,
the fact 
	remains that SEAOC has acknowledged their understanding of our
concerns and 
	gave us some assurance that the issues would be addressed.

	I would hate to think that we must go through the formal steps of
submitting 
	specific comments for the IBC in order to reactivate the same
concern that we 
	show for the existing and previous codes.

	I think that we should expect this issue to be brought up and
discussed in 
	each of the approriate committees for the IBC without further
hounding on our 
	behalf. Hopefully, one of you fine people will assure us that this
issue will 
	not be forgotten and will follow it's natural evolution up the code
cycles 
	regardless of who the publisher is (and I'm sure it will be a close
relative 
	of ICBO).

	Possibly Ron Hamburger can offer this assurance to us. If necessary,
I will 
	accumulate the posts from the last few weeks, compile them and email
them to 
	Ron or whomever he suggests.

	I expect this issue to progress toward a resolution at this point -
not fade 
	out into obscurity.

	Respectfully,
	Dennis Wish PE