Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Reliability - Redundancy Factor, 1997 UBC, Section 1630

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

> The fact is, had the major rewrite of the UBC in 1997 not occurred, engineers
> would have faced exactly the same issues, two years later with the adoption of
> the IBC.  In fact the change would have been even more severe, as in parallel
> with changes to the UBC to make it more like the NEHRP Provisions, the
> SEismology Committee also worked with the Building Seismic Safety Council to
> move the NEHRP Provisions closer to the older UBC.

    While I have not followed the years-long discussion of the 97 code development
in its entirety, it appears that the above statement somewhat undermines much of the
talk of open processes and discussions.  In one short paragraph, it appears to say
that despite all of the process and input, like it or not, the code changes were
going to happen because it was decided long ago that the NEHRP was the future.
Hence, even had the hypothetical completely involved and current engineer followed
the process and given detailed input, it wouldn't have mattered because it was
already decided by a leadership committee that the code was moving this way.  I say
this without discussion or judgment of the process or its results; I just wanted to
point out that it is quite natural that a process with partially preordained results
will leave many people feeling disillusioned.  It is quite difficult to produce a
natural feeling discussion that gives people the impression that their views count
when the results have partially been decided before most people were aware that a
discussion was even going on.

Paul Crocker