From: Scott Maxwell <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:30:05 -0500 (EST)
I should have been more precise...the IBC is more of a "future" path for
codes that the UBC. <grin>
Besides, I am willing to bet that the IBC and NFPA codes will be rather
similar when it comes to the structural provisions. More than likely both
codes will operate similarly...they will reference other organizations
code documents. For example, I believe that the IBC goal is to reference
ASCE 7 for loads, ACI 318 for concrete, AISC for steel, NDS (ASD) & ASCE
16 (LRFD) for wood, and ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402 for masonry. I believe
that the NFPA code will attempt to follow a similar philosophy.
I could, however, be wrong. It has occurred at least once in my
life...opps, wait, that was me either. <big grin>
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Randy Russ wrote:
> " .........IBC might be better since it is the "future"
> path for codes."
> Not so fast. I just returned from an NFPA seminar. They have a full fledged
> building code in the works,NFPA 5000. It will be out in a couple of years.
> Randy Russ, P.E.
> Baton Rouge, La.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Crocker <paulc(--nospam--at)ckcps.com>
> To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org' <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Date: Thursday, February 15, 2001 3:41 PM
> Subject: RE: GOOD CODE BOOK?
> >"If you want a code to provide yourself with a "learning" experience, then
> >either code will do, but the IBC might be better since it is the "future"
> >path for codes."
> >Keep in mind that the IBC makes extensive use of references rather than
> >reprinting other codes, so you will also need an ACI 318-95, an AISC
> >and possibly a few others depending on which material you work with to go
> >along with your IBC. Many engineers already have these, but if you do not
> >this could be a consideration.
> >Paul Crocker, P.E.