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

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

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
For everyones information, the proposed code changes to IBC can be
viewed/downloaded from

http://www.intlcode.org/



Barry H. Welliver
barrywelliver(--nospam--at)earthlink.net


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 1:34 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: IBC vs NFPA5000 (Was IBC 1617.6.2...)
>
>
> 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
> website.
>
> HTH,
>
> Scott
> 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.
> > KC, MO USA
> >
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********