] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

[Scott Maxwell <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>]

Verne,

First, I am going to be what appears to be a little nit-picky, but that is
not the intent...there is a reason so bear with me.  So here we go...

The UBC cannot adopt anything.  The UBC is a document produced by ICBO.
Thus, if you want a modification to the UBC then you would have to get
ICBO to adopt it.  Now, as I said, I don't mean to harp on this just to be
picky about it.  It is important because in ICBO's eyes the UBC is done,
finished, never to be touched again, and cooked to a nice lumpy, burnt
piece of charcoal.  They have put a "new burger on the grill" (sorry, but
I am typing this while a little hungry).  It is call the IBC, as I am sure
that you are aware.  The point is that the folks at ICBO are no longer
updating the UBC.  They now publish the IBC (along with the folks at BOCA
and SBC).

Thus, assuming that the 10/lw factor needs to be corrected, it will NEVER
happen in the UBC.  It will happen in the IBC.  Now, I am pretty sure that
such a correction has not occurred in the 2000 IBC.  I honestly don't know
if it has occurred in the 2003 IBC or not.  But to be entirely honest,
that is for all intents completely irrelevent.  That is because the
ultimately the folks that decide what the legal code is in California (I
am assuming that you are practicing in California and aiming your
ire/confusion in that direction) is the STATE OF CALIFORNIA (or the
appropriate local/state government that has jurisdiction if you are not
talking about California).  Thus, if you want the legal code that you are
required to use by law to adopt the modification supposedly proposed by
SEAONC, then you need to convince the State government of California to
adopt it (or what ever local/state governement has jurisdiction if you are
not just talking about California).

Now, I will admit that getting the State of California to adopt such a
change if it has not even been adopted into a model building code is
likely more difficult that if it had been adopted into a model building
code (again, I don't know if the 2003 IBC had adopted it or not).  But,
considering that the State of California elected not to adopt the 2000 IBC
(against the recommendation of SEAOC as I understand it), you would likely
have a tough sell anyway even if the 2000 IBC or 2003 IBC has adopted such
a modification.

The ultimate point is that you are (to use a tired old saying) "barking up
the wrong tree."  This means that no matter how many people agree with
you, how much energy you expend complaining about it, and how much you try
to get the your intended target to make a change, it will ultimately make
little difference as your intend target does not really have the ultimate
power to make the change where it counts.

Thus, if you really want it changed, then I suggest you take aim at those
whole really make the change where it really counts...your elected
officials.  Lot's of luck...I mean that both in a serious "good luck" kind
of way but also in a sarcastic view that it will likely be like trying to
push a 3 million ton boulder up Mount Everest.

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 VerneK(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:

>
> If the intent of the 10/lw factor in section 1630.1.1 was to reward long
> shearwalls and not to penalize short shearwalls, why doesn't the UBC adopt
> SEAONC's recommendation and say that this factor does not have to be greater than 1?
> Does the UBC know how much this one omission is costing builders?  I'd like
> to
> get opinions from Building Officials & other code agencies on this subject.
>
> Verne
>


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