Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: 10/lw factor....why can't we get along?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>I doubt that many manufacturers will
>pay to get their products reviewed just for use in California.

Mark Gilligan

Don't kid yourself.  It would be great if we could somehow punish California
for not playing in the same sandbox as everyone else.  Some companies get
testing just for L.A.  California is the 6th largest economy in the world
and does a much better job of enforcing building codes than the rest of the
country.  It seams more likely that people will test for California and ask
for forgiveness everywhere else.

Here in Utah, we have been using the 2000 IBC and will switch to the 2003
IBC in January.  I have also heard (this part is gossip and speculation by
many people) that if California switches to NFPA, we will too.  Bottom line,
it may be that if California goes NFPA, a good part of the western half of
the country may follow them.

On a side note, I would like to commend our code body here in Utah.  When
the IBC was adopted, they revised the 10/lw to be a max of 1 for light
frame.  And now in the 2003 IBC it is built in.  Also I believe the 2:1
aspect ratio has been modified.  Now for walls shorter than 2:1, a reduced
capacity is used.  But you still get something out of the panel.  Life is
not perfect here, but we are making progress!

Jake Watson, P.E.
Salt Lake City, UT

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