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

RE: IBC 2000-Sup 2001

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

I agree that interim code hearings are needed.  Our codes are large
and complex enough that there are ALWAYS a few substantial conflicts
to be repaired.  Our knowledge of seismic performance is so incomplete
that significant surprises (some of which would pose a real threat to
safety) are always just around the corner.

However, I believe that making hundreds of (largely uncoordinated)
incremental changes over the course of several years is what has made
our codes the disgraceful mess that they are today.  Quite often code
change proposals represent a "second chance to get a" BAD "idea in the
code instead of waiting for another 3 years."

When I use interim ballot drafts of Standards I know to exercise
extreme caution as the material does not yet represent a consensus and
has not been completely considered or fully coordinated.  Sadly, I've
found that our building codes are no better than interim drafts as
there is no time for the necessary consideration and no mechanism to
perform the needed coordination.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael Valley, P.E., S.E.                   E-mail: mtv(--nospam--at)
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc.              Tel:(206)292-1200
1301 Fifth Ave, #3200,  Seattle  WA 98101-2699      Fax:        -1201

-----Original Message-----
From: Yousefi, Ben [mailto:Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 11:48 AM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
Subject: RE: IBC 2000-Sup 2001

The supplements are normally not adopted by the local jurisdictions,
they feel there is a compelling need to adopt it. Through my 14 years
involvement in plan review I have never seen a city adopt the
However, it does provide a guideline for a new method or material to
considered if it is not in the current edition of the code.

In regard to why there are interim code hearings, may be having them
year is excessive, as IBC decided this year. However, having an
hearing makes sense in the way that it allows you to propose the
changes in
increments, and also a second chance to get a good idea in the code
of waiting for another 3 years.

Ben Yousefi, SE
San Jose, CA

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Mike Valley [SMTP:mtv(--nospam--at)]
	Sent:	Wednesday, April 25, 2001 11:12 AM
	To:	seaint(--nospam--at)
	Subject:	RE: IBC 2000-Sup 2001

	The supplement is a collection of approved code changes.  As was the
	case under the UBC (and the other model codes) code changes are made
	EVERY YEAR.  Such changes are published in supplements.  A new
	is published every three years and includes three years worth of

	My personal opinion is that changes between editions should be
	to items that are a real threat to safety ("clear and present
	and items associated with a substantial conflict in the code.
	Wordsmithing and politicking by special interest groups should be
	restricted to major cycles.

	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
	Michael Valley, P.E., S.E.                   E-mail:
	Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc.
	1301 Fifth Ave, #3200,  Seattle  WA 98101-2699      Fax:

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Gerard Madden [mailto:GMadden(--nospam--at)]
	Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:17 AM
	To: seaint(--nospam--at)
	Subject: Re: IBC 2000-Sup 2001

	Back the issue of all the codes we need to buy ... but what was the
	cost of that publication and is it worth the dough? Is it a
	type supplement, or is it like the NDS supplement where it is
	to perform calculations because it contains vital data.

	Or, is it one huge erratta and they sent it out Free (Am I really
	typing this ?) to all those who purchased an original or 1st
	I can't see much being revised in any chapter other than 16
	structurally, since most sections just refer to the codes of AISC,
	ACI, NDS, AISI, and others etc...


	>>> ECVAl3(--nospam--at) 04/25/01 09:21AM >>>
	I just received, from the ICBO, the 2001 Supplement to the
	Codes. It is a book as thick as the IBC 2000 itself. I get the
	code is not really ready for implemantation.  It seem that codes are
	written hurriedly to meet a deadline with the idea they can always
	in supplements or future updates.
	S.Macie, P.E.

*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) 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: