Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: IBC "Oops" (Was Residential Design Discussion)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
As a matter of fact the ICC did not adopt many of the seismic provisions
proposed by the SEAOC Seismology Committee.  The ICC is a national code and
they are, in general, hesitant to adopt provisions that they see as only
applicable to California, or any other region.

The ICC and NFPA both look to the national expertise on the various NEHRP
Committees.  Although all of these committees are "salted" with many SEAOC
members, the influence of the SEAOC State Seismology Committee is much less
than the 99.9% enjoyed before 1996 (when the provisions that became the
1997 UBC were adopted.

Regards,

Rick Drake, SE
Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo, CA

********



                                                                                                                   
                    "Structuralist"                                                                                
                    <dennis.wish@ve      To:     <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>                                               
                    rizon.net>                                                                                     
                    09/30/02 01:11       cc:                                                                       
                    AM                                                                                             
                    Please respond       Subject:     RE: IBC "Oops" (Was Residential Design Discussion)           
                    to seaint                                                                                      
                                                                                                             ..... 
                                                                                                                   




Scott,
Let me reflect that while "they don't have direct control over the
seismic provisions in the future model code" they represent the only
really active group that does. So what's the difference. Do you really
think that the ICC would not agree to accept the work done in California
by SEAOC Seismology Committee when they have led the seismic provisions
in the past. What other group that is not either led or has a majority
of California engineers who have come from the Seismology Committee are
currently working on the seismic provisions with the exception of those
from Virginia Tech whose work has benefited the NAHB in the Residential
(prescriptive) code. Even the AF&PA whose employee Phil Lines is still
chairing the BSSC TS-7 committee as I hoped we would have given up to
Steve Pryor. Steve wrote to let me know that he will not be taking the
chair.
CUREe is predomently California Based engineering. So what other
organizations are actively working on the full-compliance seismic
issues?

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:44 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: IBC "Oops" (Was Residential Design Discussion)


Rick,

And you forgot to mention that the process in the future will really go
through ASCE 7 with "coordination" with the BSSC/NEHRP provisions.  This
was some what in place for this go around with ASCE 7-02 and the 2003
IBC and 2002 NFPA 5000 (although I am not sure if the 2002 NFPA 5000 is
referencing the 2002 ASCE 7 or the 1998 ASCE 7 since I don't know if the
2002 ASCE 7 was available in time for the NFPA process, but I think it
was), but will likely become much more the issue in the future since the
supposed intent is the neither the IBC or the NFPA 5000 will contain
seismic provisions, but rather just reference the seismic provisions
from ASCE 7 which would be working with the NEHRP process.

The end result is that while many engineers from California are involved
in process (Bob Bachman is the chair of the ASCE 7 Seismic Task Group
and Ron Hamburger, if I recall correctly, is the chair the 2003
Provisions Update Committee [main committee of the BSSC] for the 2003
[and 2006?] NEHRP provisions), many who are current or past members of
the SEAOC Seismology committee, they don't have direct control over the
seismic provisions that will be in future model building codes.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)Fluor.com wrote:

> There have been several recent criticism (from the usual people) of
> the efforts of the SEAOC Seismology Committee.  I believe this is
> unfair.
>
> Yes, the SEAOC Seismology Committee initiated the  #$*&*  rho factor.

> Yes, it has some problems.  Yes they are aware of it.  The problem
> that they have is after they provided input to what is now the 1997
> UBC, they were told that there were to be no supplements to it,
> because of the 2000 IBC. From that point on, the SEAOC Seismology
> Committee focused on "getting it right" for the IBC.  Of course, they
> were assuming that the 2000 IBC would be adopted by the State of
> California.  And who could anticipate that politics that resulted in
> the creation of NFPA 5000.
>
> The reality of today's Structural Codes is that the SEAOC Seismology
> Committee cannot work directly with the ICBO for input to the UBC.
> Those days have been gone since 1997.  The process is now much more
> cumbersome, and time consuming.  Structural Provisions in the 2003 IBC

> and the 2002 NFPA 5000 are based on the 2000 NEHRP Provisions.  SEAOC
> input must go through the many BSSC Subcommittees that are responsible

> for the NEHRP Provisions.  The SEAOC Seismology Committee (and former
> members) has either members or corresponding members on most of these
> committees, positioned to input and participate in the process.  SEAOC

> and its four regional entities get 5 votes in the NEHRP Process, a
> significant factor in the process.
>
> By the way, many of the changes to the California Building Code that
> have been recently discussed have been initiated by the efforts of the

> SEAOC Seismology Committee.
>
> The SEAOC Seismology Committee members (present, past, and future)
> volunteer their time to participate in the code writing process.  Did
> you know that all of the members of the State Seismology Committee are

> members of and appointed by their local SEAOC chapters?  did you know
> that they all are designated as SEAOC representative to at least one
> industry committee, such as AISC, ACI, NEHRP, etc.  That means that
> each member of the SEAOC State Seismology Committee is committed to
> participate on at least 3 committees.  Unless you have volunteered for

> such an effort, you have no idea how much of their personal time (not
> company time as some assume) is spent reading research reports,
> reading code proposals, and discussing the many different viewpoints
> on the issues.  Even though you don't agree with everything they do,
> they do not deserve the personal attacks that some list server
> participants direct at them.
>
> Please continue to identify problems with the current codes as
> written. Please continue to offer constructive suggestions on how to
> remedy the situation.  This listserver is a valuable resource for
> identifying improvements to all of the codes.  But please, provide
> your input without personal attacks on your fellow Structural
> Engineers.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rick Drake, SE
> Fluor Daniel, Aliso Viejo, CA
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person
> or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
> and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient
> of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review,
> retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any
> action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.  Any views expressed in this message
> are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect
> the views of the company.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********


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






-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient 
of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review,
retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any
action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you 
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the 
material from any computer.  Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect 
the views of the company.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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