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

RE: In Re: "The ICC and NFPA's Tug Of War"

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I think calling the building code for Chicago a code might be viewed as
"generous" in some circles. <grin> If I recall correctly,  doesn't it have
advertisements included in the code?  And, yes, I do recall my suprise
that it was still using the 1983 version of ACI 318...Not exactly "state
of the art".

Scott


On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, David Fisher wrote:

> Bill:
> 
> I feel your pain...
> 
> Then there's Chicago, with its own building code!
> 
> They don't update design code references often though...
> 
> (It still requires concrete to comply with ACI 318-83...!)
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, we use BOCA and UBC in Illinois/Indiana/Michigan...
> 
> Wisconsin has its own code...!
> 
> 
> 
> I miss the days of working in the UK...
> 
> The British Standard Codes are very good (I Think)...
> 
> 
> See, there are times when government involvement is a good thing!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> David L. Fisher, SE, PE
> Senior Principal
> Fisher+Horos Structural Engineers
> 372 West Ontario
> Chicago, IL 60610
> USA
> 
> 312.573.1701
> 312.720.0505 mobile
> 
> www.fplushe.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:14 AM
> To: SEAINT; Aec-Residential@Polhemus. Cc
> Subject: FWD: In Re: "The ICC and NFPA's Tug Of War"
> 
> Not knowing if this letter to the editor of Structural Engineer magazine
> (regarding their article on the apparent competing building codes--IBC and
> NFPA 5000--with which we are apparently going to have to deal) will be
> published, I thought I'd post it here for perusal and comment:
> 
> ----------------BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE-------------------------------
> I just read with interest the referenced article.
> 
> As an owner of a one-man structural engineering practice, I'd like to give a
> little input and perspective about an implication of this controversy that
> is likely NOT uppermost in the minds of the movers and shakers of the
> code-writing bodies.
> 
> I live and practice near Houston. Texas does not have a state-wide building
> code. The City of Houston uses UBC, but most other outlying cities and
> unincorporated areas use SBC. However, one of the larger suburbs, Pasadena,
> uses NBC!
> 
> So I have to have the appropriate volumes of EACH of these building codes
> available in my library, and of course must update them as subsequent
> revisions are issued and adopted. This is NOT an inconsiderable expense for
> a firm like mine, where every dime has to be squeezed for what it's worth.
> 
> Add to that the necessity of keeping up-to-date versions of the applicablle
> ACI, AISC, AISI, AF&PA, TMS and other design standards, and it is quite easy
> for me to spend thousands of dollars just in keeping "state of the art" with
> my design reference works each year.
> 
> I have not yet spent the money on the IBC, as it isn't even on the horizon
> yet in my locality, but I'm sure it will be eventually. But it would have
> been nice to think that I was only going to have to worry about purchasing a
> single building code update from time to time, but with the announcement of
> NFPA 5000, it looks as though there will have to be at least TWO. Again,
> this is not an inconsiderable expense for my small firm, and I would venture
> to guess that there are many, many others in my predicament.
> 
> As a sidebar, with the promise of NFPA's offering, I may well see the time
> when I have to juggle FIVE building codes (as some of the smaller
> jurisdictions won't bother to adopt the later codes) just to make sure I
> have the standard needed for a particular project! What a mass of confusion!
> Sincerely,
> 
> William L. Polhemus, Jr., P.E.
> Polhemus Engineering Company
> Katy, Texas
> Phone 281-492-2251
> Fax 281-492-8203
> 
> ----------------END FORWARDED MESSAGE-------------------------------
> 
> 
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions 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
> 
> 
> * 
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions 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 
> 


* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions 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