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

RE: Two Codes !!

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

-------------Forwarded Message-----------------

From:   Peter Higgins, 76573,2107
To:     INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org, INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
        
Date:   9/26/00  9:21 AM

RE:     RE: Two Codes !!

Ben,

Well said. What's worse, the structural provisions are perhaps some of the
better parts of IBC 2000. That says a lot, and none of it good.

NFPA sought to open up the process to all concerned parties. So far they're
doing exactly that. I expect much better code because of it.

Let's see what happens before condemning NFPA outright as heretics who
refuse to worship at the shrine of code unification.

In the meantime, let us wish them good luck in the effort. WE need it.

Peter Higgins, SE

Message text written by INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>Stan

Your assessment of the situation and how it is evolving is quite accurate
based on my observation too. I too, shared your desire of one code adopted
uniformly throughout the country. Having been involved to some degree with
the IBC development process, I believe there is some merit to some of the
objections certain groups had with the process. The main word that comes to
my mind is "exclusion". 

At least as it related to structural( and in particular seismic) issues it
was very frustrating to get the anything changed during the IBC code
hearings. The committee was comprised of people mostly without an in depth
knowledge of structural design. So, with any new proposal they looked to a
group of advocates that they knew, and relied mostly on their input for
making a decision. Most obvious were the seismic provisions and the
reliance
on NEHRP folks. No individual or entity had a prayer of changing anything
if
theses folks were opposed to it. In my opinion no individual or group has a
monopoly on intelligence or knowledge and we should always be open to hear
from anyone who may have good idea. Unfortunately that is not the feeling I
got during my dealings with the IBC structural committee hearings.

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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********