Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: ibc adoption

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Ah...not so fast.

To my knowledge, ASCE 7 is the only one that has fully committed to going
to a 6 year time frame.  The committee will put out the next version in
2010 and then go to a 6 year cycle (i.e. 2016, etc).  The idea of the 5
years this time is to be one year ahead of the material standards (ACI
318, MSJC...although the NDS and AISC have never really been on a "fixed"
schedule) so that they can then get the "load" stuff out ahead so that
materials standards can reference/adopt the most current ASCE 7.  In
otherwords, in theory it will help coordination (one should notice that
ACI 318-02 tends to reference ASCE 7-98 since they cannot technically
reference a document [i.e. ASCE 7-02] that is not published at the time
that they publish ACI 318).  Supposedly, this will result in ASCE 7 really
going to a 6+1 time frame...in otherwords, they will have a published 2010
ASCE 7 out for the material standards to reference, then ASCE will prepare
a Supplement to the main document that reference the 2011 material
standards once they come out.  That supplement will come out right before
the IBC final approval and the idea is that the adopted "ASCE 7" in the
IBC will actually be ASCE 7 plus the Supplement.  This would be much like
they are doing right now...the ASCE 7-05 that is to be released any day is
actually ASCE 7-05 plus Supplement No. 1.

And I would further add that the committee reserves the right to publish
additional supplements that could address "critical" issues (i.e. like we
learn something new that requires that what is currently adopted be
updated or changed).

To my knowledge, the IBC cycle will still be three years, although I do
know that there is a push by some to go to 6 years.

And to my knowledge, ACI (and TMS and ASCE) is not changing their cycle
for 318 or 530 (aka masonry code).  I will point out that ACI 318 is "kind
of" on a 6 year cycle.  Generally, speaking every other cycle of 318 tends
to only have "minor" changes with the remain cycles having the "major"
technical changes.  2005 is kind of a "minor" change cycle for 318 in
terms of significant technical changes (to my knowledge).  They did do a
MAJOR overhall of terminology and definitions, if I recall correctly.
There will likely be many more significant technical changes in 2008.

HTH,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Sherman, William wrote:

> FYI, after the current code cycle (IBC 2006, ASCE 7-05, ACI 318-05,
> etc), my understanding is that the codes are going back to a 6-year code
> cycle.  (Some will be on a 4-5 year initial cycle to allow better
> inter-code coordination. )
>
> William C. Sherman, PE
> (Bill Sherman)
> CDM, Denver, CO
> Phone: 303-298-1311
> Fax: 303-293-8236
> email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)cdm.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Haan, Scott M POA [mailto:Scott.M.Haan(--nospam--at)poa02.usace.army.mil]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:46 AM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: RE: ibc adoption
> >
> > Scott:
> >
> > So what you're really saying is to buy stock in Barnes&Noble
> > or Amazon.com or ICC publications etc...?  Sounds like a
> > conspiracy to make every structural engineering firm buy at
> > least 6 or 7 new code books every 3 years.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Scott Haan.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:38 AM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: Re: ibc adoption
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > A question that I would ask is did anyone at this seminar
> > clearly indicate whether they were talking about California
> > adopting a version of the IBC or just talking about the IBC
> > process of publishing the final version of the 2006 IBC code
> > (i.e. has nothing to do with California specifically)?
> > My understanding is that CA will not change until the state
> > agency/commission votes/decides officially to make the
> > change.  Now, as I understand it, the INTENT is for CA to go
> > to the IBC code and in theory to do it when the 2006 IBC is
> > "out there", but I don't believe that the final decision has
> > been made as of yet.  I _DO_ know that based upon the timing
> > of the IBC process, it potentially makes more sense that they
> > were just talking about the IBC process wrapping up the
> > approval/publication of the
> > 2006 IBC code.  The Ibc process is in its final stages for
> > the 2006 IBC code.  There will be one more "round" of
> > hearings in the spring with the final vote of the ICC members
> > and the final release/publication of the
> > 2006 IBC code by mid-year.  Once that happens, then
> > jurisdictions (states, cities, counties, etc) will then start
> > the process of adopting it for use.
> > I know that Michigan usually lags by about a year or two in
> > terms of adopting the IBC code for use here relative to the
> > time that it was published.  For example, the 2003 IBC was
> > adopted a little over a year ago, if I recall correctly.
> >
> > Besides, I will offer that even if they are talking about the
> > CA process and not just the IBC process, then you can still
> > get your hands on the VAST majority of what will comprise the
> > 2006 IBC now.  Since the IBC code HEAVILY relies on
> > referencing various "material" standards (at least for the
> > structural sections, you can go get those referenced material
> > standards and be long way towards what most of the structural
> > provisions in the IBC will be.  Most of the material
> > standards that the 2006 IBC will adopt by reference are
> > currently available or will be shortly.  I know that ACI
> > 318-05, the 2005 MSJC (aka masonry code or ACI 530-05), and the
> > 2005 NDS are already available as I already have them.  ASCE
> > 7-05 (which is technically ASCE 7-05 plus Supplement No 1)
> > will be available anytime (I believe ASCE's website
> > officially says something like Nov 20th).  I believe the
> > AISC's new specs are already available for free download
> > (goto http://www.aisc.org/2005spec to get the new 2005
> > ASD/LRFD spec...I don't believe the 2005 Seismic specs have
> > been fully approved as of yet [could not find them on the
> > website] but could be wrong) but will also be in new Manual
> > that will be release in December.  All of these publications
> > will get you the overwhelming majority of what the structural
> > provisions will be in the 2006 IBC, but not all of them.
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Scott
> > Adrian, MI
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 PFFEI(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > i was at the seaoc moment frame seminar in june where the plan
> > > checkers present indicated that the code would change to a
> > version of
> > > the ibc that
> > was in
> > > galley form at the time of the seminar.  at that time it
> > was unclear
> > > how
> > the
> > > building department would handle the code change and that it was
> > > possible
> > that
> > > everyone would see the code for the first time on the day it was
> > > adopted in
> > the
> > > new year.
> > >
> > > does any one have any more information.  when will the new code be
> > > adopted and in what form? is it a form  available now for
> > review? will
> > > there be a transition period where the new code is phased
> > in but old
> > > is still accepted
> > for plan
> > > check?
> > >
> > > thank you for any information you can provide
> > >
> > > paul franceschi, s.e.
> > >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   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
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********