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

Re: Using IBC Supplements

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Paul,

I personally don't consider the IBC Supplement to be comparable to an
errata.  An errata is a fixing of errors that occurred during the printing
process (i.e. the person type-setting mistyped something, etc), while the
Supplement is a change to the code that went through a "code change"
process just not during the typical 3 year cycle.  Another way to look at
it is that an errata item would be "fixing" something that the actual
"code people" (those that vote/create the code provisions) did not break,
while a Supplement item is something that the "code people" realized could
be better (or is just plain wrong) that they previously approved that they
then decide needs to be changed/updated/clarified.

At least that is how I saw things treated to a large degree with the
various material standard code committee and their organizations in the
US.  Now, the ICC might treat things differently.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Paul Ransom wrote:

> > From: "Sherman, William" <ShermanWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com>
>
> > I don't have an answer to the question below, but I am curious as to how
> > supplements are typically used by other engineers. My understanding is
> > that code supplements only apply if the jurisdiction has directly
> > adopted the supplements to the code. I've only rarely seen such
> > supplements explicitly adopted.
>
> On a recent project, I was successful in having the building authority
> accept specific IBC supplements because they clarified the intent. It
> made their job easier. They did talk to ICC before they would accept.
>
> ICC appears to have made every effort to avoid using the word "errata".
>
> --
> R. Paul Ransom, P. Eng.
> Civil/Structural/Project/International
> Burlington, Ontario, Canada
> <mailto:ado26(--nospam--at)hwcn.org> <http://www.hwcn.org/~ad026/civil.html>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********