Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

California decides not to adopt the IBC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Hope that California once again leads the nation!

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

Ben.Yousefi wrote:

>>The California Building Standards Commission has decided to 
stay with the 97 UBC for another 3 years. 
http://www.icbo.org/wsnsa.dll/showprsrls.w?blobid=00005153
<http://www.icbo.org/wsnsa.dll/showprsrls.w?blobid=00005153> 
The 2000 IBC was scheduled to be adopted statewide sometime in 2002.
However, by delaying its adoption, the 97 UBC will most likely stay in
effect until 2005 in California.
personally, I have mixed feelings about this. The 2000 IBC is a much more
reasonable and progressive code in regard to life safety issues. However,
structurally, while more complicated, it is not really much of an
improvement over the 97 UBC. the format for earthquake provisions is not
easy to follow and it could also effectively reduce base shear in much of
California. 
This will probably be a welcome reprieve for many designers and code
officials. The 97 UBC was a substantial change to the 94 UBC and many are
still struggling with the intricacies of the new code. To adopt a brand new
code in a year and half, and start the learning process all over again,
would have been too much too fast. 
With the emergence of NFPA as a possible national code it is not clear
whether IBC will even be adopted at the next code adoption cycle in
California.
Stay Tuned.
Ben Yousefi, SE
San Jose, CA<<