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

Re: Using IBC Supplements

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Scott,
Actually, I agree with you. I think that many of the things that I have an
issue with were done with good intentions and in the proper manner. I also
think that an "errata" may have certain legal complications that an
"editorial change" or "supplement" may not.

> From: Scott Maxwell <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>

> 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.

> 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".


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