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 Rick has pointed out below, the process for the seismic provisions for
the IBC and NFPA 5000 _IS_ that the SEAOC Seismology committee does not
have the same explicit, direct control over the seismic provisions that
they used to have with the UBC.  As Rick and I have pointed out, there are
certainly members of the SEAOC Seismology committee that participate in
the NEHRP, ASCE 7, ACI 318, AISC, MSJC, and ICC Structural Code Advisotry
Committee (which is essentially handled by NCSEA in part), but they don't
"control" the discussion or content of model codes.  All of the above
organizations operate with concensus processes, with the except of NEHRP
and ICC Structural Code Advisory committee I believe, which results is
every member of a committee essentially having veto power.  Thus, a member
of ASCE 7 who is not a California engineer can actually be in a position
to "block" a provision that is put forward by a small but vocal California
contingant.  The result is that in this day and age, SEAOC Seismology
_CANNOT_ just at will make changes to the seismic provisions of the model
building codes...they must work within the concensus (and other) process
to convince others from outside SEAOC and California of the merits of a
proposed change.

That is not to say that members of SEAOC Seismology are not in positions
where they can exert significant influence on the process.  As I pointed
out, Bob Bachman (don't know if he is a current or past member of SEAOC
Seismology or not) is chair the ASCE 7 Seismic Task group.  This group is
the sub-committee that prepares changes and provisions for the seismic
provisions in ASCE 7 (and thus NFPA 5000 by adoption and likely the IBC by
adoption in the future).  What comes out of this sub-committee _MUST_
still be approved by the full ASCE 7 committee (many of which have VERY
little seismic knowledge).  Also, this sub-committee works with the BSSC
technical sub-committees and the BSSC PUC.  This was because in the past
the ASCE 7 would mainly be taking the NEHRP provisions and "converting"
them into code language (i.e. mandatory language), but this is looking
like it will change some in the future as to how it works.  You also have
Ron Hamburger who is now the chair of the NEHRP Provisions Update
Committee.  This is the main BSSC committee that oversees all the BSSC
techinical subcommittees.

The point is while these two individuals hold some positions of "power",
they cannot directly control the output of the committees, only really
"nudge" or influence the outcome.


Ypsilanti, MI

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 Rick.Drake(--nospam--at) wrote:

> 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

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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: 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********