Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: ibc adoption

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Scott,

Depends on how you look at it.  On the one hand, you can look at it as an
effort by the various organizations (ACI, TMS, ASCE, ICC, AFPA, and to a
lesser degree AISC [they do give out the actual "code" provisions for
free but if you want it in the form of a manual then you pay]) to maintain
a revenue stream...kind of like AutoCAD or Microsoft wanting yearly
maintance fees rather than just paying for updates that you want.  This
would be the "negative" view.  On the other hand, you could look at it as
the organizations want us to have the most current knowledge and tools
that could other wise be available and be able to "fix" stuff in a timely,
organizied manner rather than more "hap-hazard" (i.e. we could end up with
a longer code cycle, but still get tons of changes in supplements or
"emergency" updates).

As a case in point, even though California is by and large using the 1997
UBC as the basis of their code (which is now about to be nine years or 3
"cycles" "out of date"), I believe that they have significantly amended it
on a fairly regular basis.  For example, I believe that they at least
require the use of a couple of AISC's supplements to the 1997 AISC Seismic
spec...all of which were published AFTER the 1997 UBC and not originally
referenced in the 1997 UBC (I could be wrong on this...if so, someone
please correct me).  So, the point is that we could go to a longer cycle
but then still learn about "opertunities for enhancement" (i.e. mistakes,
etc) in the currently available code that would require additional updates
out side of the longer cycle.

And FWIW, there is NOTHING that say a jurisdiction (state, county, city,
etc) _HAS_ to adopt the latest and greatest available model code and the
standards that it references.  After all, California has stubbornly stuck
with the 1997 UBC for YEARS (for a variety of reasons).  I will admit that
this point means little to a practicing engineer that works in a variety
of jurisdictions as some of those jurisdictions would update anyway.

I will point out that I am used to this approach (i.e. material standards
referenced by the model building code, thus having to buy multiple books
when the new code is published).  This approach has been used for YEARS by
BOCA, which was the code of choice in my neck of the woods before the IBC.
And I will offer that those of the UBC still had face of this in the past
as one must have the NDS for wood design and the various AISC specs
(albeit available for free in PDF form) as those are NOT contained in the
UBC.  The 1997 UBC in effect did use ACI 318-95, but somehow got
permission to reprint it in the actual UBC book (although without the
commentary...so if you want ACI's commentary, you still have to get ACI
318-95).

And last, I will again say that it is just the cost of being a structural
engineer.  All professions have some costs associated with them.  Do you
think that X-ray machines, MRI machines, exam tables, etc just magically
appear out of thin air for free for doctors to use?  What about wrenches
or other tools that you mechanic uses to fix your car?   Do they get them
free?  Nope.  Either they or their employer must pay for those "tools"
that are required for them to do their job.  It is no different for us.
Someone (us or our employer) must pay for the "tools" that we
use...calculators, computers, pencils, pads of paper, plotters....and
codes.  ;-)

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Haan, Scott M POA wrote:

> 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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********