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

RE: IBC 2000-Sup 2001

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The only changes made in subsequent printings are revisions for
errata.  It can be argued that a jurisdiction has adopted the
error-free version (which will never be published!).

While the common-sense, practical reality is that errors are the fault
of the publisher, I believe that the publishers would disclaim such
responsibility and insist that the user bears the burden.  (However,
the publishers generally do make long lists of errata available.)  In
other words, if your design is inadequate by a factor of two due to an
error on the part of a typist at Code Organization X, the code
organization may notify users of the error but will not pay for the
needed redesign or repair.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: David B Merrick [mailto:mrkgp(--nospam--at)pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 12:46 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: IBC 2000-Sup 2001


Recall that the UBC97 had subsequent printings (printing 1,
printing2...4, not
addendums) Each printing had changed. I wonder if a juridiction
adoption
registers the printing number. I wonder if one could ever get the
older printing
that was adopted. If not, that would mean some jurisdiction may not
have thier
code being published (ie printing 1). Sacramento, Ca has put their
planning code
on the net and no one has to buy it. It looks like that is needed for
the
building code etc. No one would have to buy it! and it would not
change by
someone outside of the juridiction. Who is liable for changes in new
printings
that are not noted as changed? Sounds like a publisher issue. I ended
up buying
several copies of the UBC97. None were the same. Boy, did I spend
money!

"Yousefi, Ben" wrote:

> The supplements are normally not adopted by the local jurisdictions,
unless
> they feel there is a compelling need to adopt it. Through my 14
years of
> involvement in plan review I have never seen a city adopt the
supplements.
> However, it does provide a guideline for a new method or material to
be
> 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
every
> year is excessive, as IBC decided this year. However, having an
interim
> 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
instead
> of waiting for another 3 years.
>
> Ben Yousefi, SE
> San Jose, CA
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From:   Mike Valley [SMTP:mtv(--nospam--at)skilling.com]
>         Sent:   Wednesday, April 25, 2001 11:12 AM
>         To:     seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>         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
> edition
>         is published every three years and includes three years
worth of
>         "supplements".
>
>         My personal opinion is that changes between editions should
be
> limited
>         to items that are a real threat to safety ("clear and
present
> danger")
>         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:
> mtv(--nospam--at)skilling.com
>         Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc.
> Tel:(206)292-1200
>         1301 Fifth Ave, #3200,  Seattle  WA 98101-2699      Fax:
> -1201
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: Gerard Madden [mailto:GMadden(--nospam--at)mplusl.com]
>         Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:17 AM
>         To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>         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
> commentary
>         type supplement, or is it like the NDS supplement where it
is
> required
>         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
> printing?
>         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...
>
>         -Gerard
>
>         >>> ECVAl3(--nospam--at)aol.com 04/25/01 09:21AM >>>
>         I just received, from the ICBO, the 2001 Supplement to the
>         International
>         Codes. It is a book as thick as the IBC 2000 itself. I get
the
> feeling
>         this
>         code is not really ready for implemantation.  It seem that
codes are
>         now
>         written hurriedly to meet a deadline with the idea they can
always
> be
>         revised
>         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:
> *
> *   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