] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

["Dennis Wish" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)verizon.net>]

I heard the rumor that they will be the same, but will charge you
$150.00 for a five page conversion of the section numbers :>) Just
kidding!!!

BTW, I am thinking of writing my own code for low-rise light-framing. It
will be placed in public domain and will be available by all
professionals who are sick and tired of the ambiguities shoved down our
professional vocal chords in the existing UBC. This all started (and
continued) with the lack of interest of the SEAOC Seismology Committee
from responding to the questions related to intent of the code
methodology (including the 10/Lw issues which was never intended for
low-rise light-framed structures that rarely have interior shearwalls
even close to 10/Lw ratios. Since these seemingly so unimportant
concerns surrounding light-framing  have fallen on deaf ears so we might
as well write our own code and establish a standard of professional
practice that can hold up in a court of law (we may have to buy off one
of the Chief justices in the process but this will be a very cost saving
thing to do for the public who wish to buy and remodel a home
constructed to full-compliance (whatever that is) methods. Okay - don't
jump down my throat I know of all these fine upstanding volunteers that
make code writing possible and admire their dedication to trying to stop
a three ton snowball from running downhill! 


Sincerely,
Dennis S. Wish, PE
California Professional Engineer
Structural Engineering Consultant
http://www.structuralist.net
dennis.wish(--nospam--at)verizon.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu] 
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 3:32 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: 10/lw factor....why can't we get along?


Joe,

Ha!  The joke is on you!! You thought that we would have something
logical like one standardized code for the entire US?!?  ;-)

You had to know that someone would come along an change the best laid
plans!  It makes too much sense to have one code!

On a more serious note, in theory, there should be VERY little
difference between the IBC and NFPA 5000 when it comes to the structural
provisions. The NFPA is supposedly adopting the reference standards with
basically no modifications (at least that was their original intent).
This should mean no modifications unless it goes through the appropriate
standards committee (i.e. ACI 318 for concrete stuff, ASCE 7 for load
stuff, etc). The IBC is getting much closer to such a way of doing
things.  Supposedly, they are also trying to minimize changes after one
of the reference standards has been completed by the various groups and
then adopted into the IBC.

Thus, in theory, the IBC and NFPA structural provisions should be nearly
identical.  Now, the other parts of the codes might still be messy, but
we just let the mechanical engineers, electrical engineers and
architects worry about that!! ;-)

HTH,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 Jnapd(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:

> Scott:
> I thought the original intent was to have one code for all areas of 
> the US . That is why that phased out the UBC.  Seems like we are 
> heading back to different codes for everybody again.
>
> Joe Venuti
> Johnson & Nielsen Associates
> Palm Springs,  CA
>
>


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