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

RE: IBC vs NFPA5000 (Was IBC 1617.6.2...)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The intent for both codes (IBC and NFPA 5000) is to adopt by reference
various material/load codes.  That is, both codes intent to adopt by
reference ASCE 7, ACI 318, ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402 (the MSJC), AISC specs,
NDS, and others with little or no modifications.

The primary difference is how the two codes go about adopting the
referenced codes.  NFPA's plan is to basically adopt the reference codes
with no modifications, except some very minor things to get the whole
thing speaking the same language.  As I understand it, they will NOT have
public hearings were any single person/entity can propose a change to one
of the referenced codes.  The NFPA relies heavily on the consensus process
that are built into the various material/load codes.

The IBC, on the other hand, does hold public hearing where an
individual/entity can propose and get accepted a suggested change that may
not have a consensus view.  The IBC, like the NFPA 5000, will basically
adopt the consensus based material/load codes, but there is more
opportunity for significant modifications that result from the hearings.
The potential downside is that someone with an agenda can get a code
modifcation through that may not be something that the industry considers
to be a good consensus solution.  In theory, however, the fact that the
hearings are public should be a good thing.

BTW, the hearings for the 2003 IBC will occuring shortly.  It appears that
the heering will be in mid April in Pittsburgh, PA according to the ICBO


Ypsilanti, MI

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Effland, Greg wrote:

> >From a recent presentation by NFPA at a local SEA meeting the presenter had
> indicated that their intent was to have the structural portions based upon
> ASCE7, intending to match that of the IBC code...  I personally can not say
> the two codes have the same structural requirements since I have not looked
> at the NFPA but she indicated that they are intended to be the same for the
> Structural portions... (I guess the other sections may vary)
> HTH,
> Greg Effland, P.E.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at:
*   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:
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********