Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: SEAOC seismology opinion regarding 10/Lw factor for calculating rho

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

There is a repeal process at ICBO by which the Board of Directors can make
emergency code changes (effective immediately) subject to ratification of the
full membership at the next annual meeting.  I am not sure how this works with
the ICC.  If this were (or could) be done, I "guess" the state of California
could select the 2000 ICC "as amended" as the model code but we are venturing
into an area without  legal precedent.

As far as SEAOC's code change proposal, it goes something like this ( you can
get actual dates, places and committee memberships from the icbo web site).
Code changes to the 2000 IBC will result in the 2001 Supplement.
They had to be submitted by November 1.
The submitted changes will be published in late January.
There will be a hearing by an ICC Committee in the spring in Birmingham, Alabama

The results will be published and may be challenged.
Any challenges will be voted on in the fall at the joint ICBO/BOCA annual
meeting in San Francisco.  (How does SBCC vote?)
The supplement will be published.

The SEAOC Code Change will have no practical effect in California because the
state adopts only the codes every 3 years not the supplements.  It is possible
that an emergency amendment could be made (like the deletion of the pre
qualified moment joint after Northridge) by the CBSC but I doubt that is a real
possibility as the change would be less restrictive.  Also, the SE seat on the
CBSC is vacant as the governor, after 11 months in office, still has not made an
appointment.

California local governments may not adopt any changes to the code which are
less restrictive.

We are most probably stuck with Rho until at least January 2004 or later when
the 2001 and 2003 supplements automatically become part of the 2003 IBC and that
code becomes the model code in CA.

SEConsultant wrote:  <SNIP>

> So far, Mr. Johnson has written to tell me that it is not possible to repeal
> the code as Bob Bossi has outlined. I think that Mr. Johnson simply is not
> motivated to explore the possibility with ICBO.
>
> Respectfully,
> Dennis S. Wish PE
>
> -