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

Re: Periodicity of code changes.

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Andy wrote:

>>As long as someone profits from publishing the code every 3 years 
regardless of errors, and without any liability, the code, will be published. 
Realistically, is there that much scientific data warranting the publication 
of a new code on a regular interval? (If the answer is yes than by all means 
there should be some sort of amendment to the code) Has full scale testing 
been done to back up the changes to the 97 UBC, or was it a compromise? We 
all know that the code had to be rushed out by a specific deadline, and now 
we're paying the penalty for an ambiguously written and untested code.<<

I agree wholeheartedly!  Unfortunately, the situation is even worse as the 
code cycle is not a 3-year cycle, but a 1-year cycle.  While ICBO has 
*printed* new codes every three years, the code change cycle for about 20 
years now has been a 1-year cycle.

It used to be that code changes submitted that were unclear or incomplete 
were "Held for Further Study."  Then ICBO went to a 1-year cycle to eliminate 
these hold overs.

Witness the current IBC2000.  It wasn't even printed when the deadline for 
changes, November, 1999, occurred.  It still wasn't printed when the code 
committees held their public hearings.  It will probably not have been 
adopted by many, if any, jurisdictions when challenges to the code committee 
recommendations are due.  It probably will not have been adopted by many, if 
any, jurisdictions when the annual meeting is held in September to adopt the 
changes to the IBC2000.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that it would not be difficult to pierce the 
cloak of immunity by showing the absurd review and amending procedures that 
are used.

A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona