Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: California decides not to adopt the IBC (for now)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
South Carolina has already approved the IBC 2000 and it will be require in mid
2001 I believe.

Mike

"Sprague, Harold O." wrote:

> Ben,
>
> I, also, have mixed feelings about this news.  The base shear issue is a
> double edged sword.  While there are some areas in California where the base
> shear will be lower, there will be many areas where the base shear will be
> much larger properly accounting for source proximity.  The mapping efforts
> for the 1997 NEHRP were as devoid of politics in this effort as ever.  If a
> region of California feels that the base shears are too high, they should
> look at the New Madrid Seismic Zone which is the new king of seismicity.
> The USGS and the NEHRP technical subcommittee did an outstanding job.
>
> Regarding the NFPA.  The NFPA will be using the ASCE 7-02 as a reference
> which also draws from the NEHRP as does the IBC.  There will be no salvation
> from the more complicated seismic design provisions, only a reprieve.
>
> I personally find it uncomfortable designing structures using the 1997 UBC
> knowing that they may be inadequate when comparing the provisions using the
> ASCE 7-98 or the IBC 2000.  I also find it uncomfortable using seismicity
> maps of the 1997 UBC based on technology from the 1960's.
>
> Disregarding the state of the practice may be acceptable to the State of
> California, but it poses an ethical dilemma to the practicing engineer.  The
> State has the comfort of sovereign immunity.  The engineer has an ethical
> obligation to public safety.  It kind of makes me want to get a law degree,
> and wait for the ground to shake.  (I'm kidding.  I'm not that much of a
> mercenary.)
>
> It is also a great opportunity to rehabilitate brand new structures when the
> State finally passes something.
>
> Regards,
> Harold Sprague
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yousefi, Ben [SMTP:Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)ci.sj.ca.us]
> > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 10:03 AM
> > To:   'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'
> > Subject:      California decides not to adopt the IBC (for now)
> >
> >
> > 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
>