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]
Give me time to respond, Scott. I have to get some billable work out
today. In short, if a tree is sick, sometimes it is necessary to cut out
the root to make  it better. My point is that there is more "power" than
you give Bob Bachman and the other members of the SEAOC Seismology
Committee who are now involved in the committees that participate in the
ICC committees than you give them credit for. Let's leave this for a
later discussion.
Thanks
Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu] 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:35 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: IBC "Oops" (Was Residential Design Discussion)


Dennis,

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.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 Rick.Drake(--nospam--at)Fluor.com 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: 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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********