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

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

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Very good explanation of the process. My biggest beef with the so called
"consensus" process is that this is actually a selected group of private
sector or higher education professionals that pretty much decide on
everything. For example, public officials, who are the ones actually
enforcing these provisions, are virtually shut out of these processes. Until
we make a change and include equal representation from all sectors on these
consensus process groups, and ensure that everyone's voice is heard, the
current democratic process of code hearings is a much preferred medium in my
opinion.

Ben Yousefi, SE
San Jose, CA

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Scott Maxwell [SMTP:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
	Sent:	Tuesday, February 12, 2002 12:34 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


	

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********