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

[no subject]

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Thanks, Ben, for the clarification on the 2000 IBC adoption schedule.

Perhaps as a list we can discuss a repeal of the rho factor in the 2000 IBC.
We would need to identify all the places it shows up, either directly or by
reference, and amend those sections.  Then we could get 100 of the 15,000
members of the list to sign it as a proposal.  Gary Searer already did the
most work in getting 20 or so signers to the concept of repeal in his paper
on the subject.  With those 20 (distinguished) signers and several dozen
ruffians from this list, perhaps it will pass.  Do you think we can do it by
January?

Regarding authority to change the code AFTER the fact, my comments still
stand.  The CBSC should have the authority to change the 1997 UBC to
eliminate the rho provisions, effective immediately, if it is deemed prudent
to do so.  This would of course be preceded by deliberations open to the
public.  I am not sure that they have that authority now.

Mark Swingle

--------------------

on 29 July 00 Ben Yousefi wrote:

<<Mark

<<There is still a chance to make changes to the 2000 IBC. According to the 
current state schedule for the adoption of IBC, interested parties have
until 
January of 2001 to submit code change proposals to the California Building 
Standards Commission. Anyone can submit code change proposals. As I 
understand SEAOC has already submitted some changes. (Maybe someone from the

SEAOC code committee should shed some light on this.) 

<<The thing that throws a monkey ranch in the whole process is the strong 
opposition of some vocal groups to the IBC and the parallel process of 
creation of a new building code by the NFPA (national Fire Protection 
Association). The picture of the next cycle of code adoption looks very 
convoluted at this time. In one scenario we may be stuck with 97 UBC for 
several more years.

<<But I would encourage everyone who has a bone to pick with an item in the 
UBC, that was carried over to the IBC, to consider submitting a change 
proposal. We need to take action otherwise decisions will be made for us.

<<Ben Yousefi, SE
<<San Jose, CA

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** 
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to 
*   admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message type 
*   "join seaint" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email 
*   to admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message 
*   type "leave seaint" (no quotes). For questions, send 
*   email to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********