IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
(OP)
No mention of UBC'97 is made in IBC 2000
So I can not conclude that UBC'97 can no longer be used.
I like the detailed seismic considerations in UBC'97 better than I do using IBC 2000 which seems to make references to other national codes.
Can I go on using UBC'97.
NOTE: I am not in US.
regards
IJR
So I can not conclude that UBC'97 can no longer be used.
I like the detailed seismic considerations in UBC'97 better than I do using IBC 2000 which seems to make references to other national codes.
Can I go on using UBC'97.
NOTE: I am not in US.
regards
IJR






RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
Regards,
-Mike
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
Being in the United States, I do not know much about codes in various countries around the world. One thing I can say is, there is no major peril by using the 1997 UBC as it is a code that has evolved every 3 years or so since the 1920's with each edition reflecting modifications due to knowledge gained from experiences and earthquakes.
1997 UBC was a "major" change from the 1994 UBC and there are cases where the resulting design (or design coefficient) may be overly conservative.
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
As to the "International"- I think it comes from the organization, not the application. Going to ICBO.org, I find myself redirected to www.iccsafe.org. And it seems that Region 12 of that organization is the "International" regioun (Regions 1-11 are different areas of US).
Reminds me of IHOP, the International House of Pancakes. It started as one restaurant, but already used that name, even when there was only one restaurant.
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
As a former member of ICBO, I enjoyed many benefits including one free publication (one from their list) each year I renew my membership and a very low membership dues. Since ICBO "became" ICC, there was a significant increase in membership dues and they eliminated the free book. I am considering not continuing my membership with ICC...
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
Local jurisdictions should always be contacted directly however, for updated regulations, local variations, special conditions, etc.
-Mike
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
In addition, I would also be interested in knowing about building codes that are in use around the world, especially in seismicly active regions such as Taiwan, Phillipines, Turkey, Central America, etc. In fact, I am so ignorant that I know very little about the codes used by our neighbors Canada and Mexico.
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
As an aside, one comment that I thought interesting after extensive damage from a recent earthquake in Iran was an official (in Iran) who said that their building codes are really good enough; it's just that nobody follows them.
Regards,
-Mike
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
I guess many countries build structures without any code regulations and when there is a collapse, designers and builders get imprisoned (or executed).
What I would like to explore are the countries that DO have a building code at a national level that is enforced by the government. I've only "heard" of Russian Code, Eurocode, etc but never really encountered them in my career in the US. I've also heard of the Chinese Building Code.
The International Building Code is relatively new (First version being 2000). It appears that "most" of the States within the US adopted the IBC. What about the rest of the world?
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
The trend today is towards Eurocode, a common code with national parameters.
I think that the "international" in the International Building Code is just a name and not a status. In my experience the UBC is actually more international then IBC but that can very well be wrong. It's been a few years since I had reason to check.
In parts of Asia the applicable code is British Standard. In Africa there is British Standard and sometimes French code but also others. This is often associated with old colonial traditions.
It's my firm believe that one of the first steps in a project should be to find out which the applicable codes are. Any ideas like "what's ok in xx is ok in yy" will only cause trouble.
Regards
Thomas
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
You mentioned that the UBC 1997 is conservative for seismic forces.
In my area (which is relatively mild for seismic (or WAS under the UBC), the seismic force has doubled under the IBC, compared to UBC 1997.
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
My comment that 1997 UBC may result in a more conservative coefficient compared with ones from 1994 and prior UBC. Although I've had my 2000 IBC for around 5 years or so, I probably spent less than 2 hours with it open. Therefore, I really can't comment about UBC vs IBC force levels.
Perhaps when my State adopts the IBC, then I may catch up with the rest of the US.
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
The moving window (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) is updated based on new data and methods with each update (2000 and 2003 used the same data set.)
USGS says that worldwide data is available from the National Earthquake Information Center in Denver, but there is no non-US data on the USGS website at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps/products_data/
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
Since most pals here got stuck on the word "international" which is not the point of my original post, let me throw in some bits I have collected over years
1- There are several great codes. Prior to UBC'97 I used to love the Romanian Seismic Code. It is still one of the greatest seismic codes. New Zealand wind code is worth having a look at as are several other New Zealand codse. UBC has always been a great piece of work for us who work between countries. It is a result of extensive research and California being a seismic active state, got best research in this area pumped into UBC. Eurocodes are great codes, emphasizing on understanding of structural and material behavior but Europe is not a seismic active area and Eurocodes do not enjoy the priviledges of a great seismic code.
2- Great codes tend to be very flexible and can be adopted outside the nations they reside. I have used UBC to design US Army units in Iraq, taking advantage of seismic zoning prepared by Iraqi scientists(Al Qasrani et al) adaptable to UBC'97. The only issues left to engineering assesments in most great codes are geography dependent loading(quake, winds, temperature) and material qualities(you adjust your phi factors). Note that US Army has geographical data for almost any country you might need. Else you find a scientific source and see if the information is easy to apply to a specific code.
Special thanks to mrMikee, whyun,JStephen for making me undestand that UBC'97 can be applied still and to JAE for just being around eng-tips
respects
IJR
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
That said, the structural part of the IBC is hard to like. In the case of wind loads and nonbuilding structures seismic for example, it defers to the ASCE 7 but with exceptions. Maybe in the future this will change, but for now it makes for hard reading.
-Mike
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
When the IBC 2000 came out, its so-called "simplified" wind pressure tables were so impractical to use, we studied the applicable ASCE-7, and found it to be very similar to the UBC Method 1 wind pressure coefficients. We already had an Excel wind calculation worksheet for UBC 1997 that was based on Method 1, so it was a simple matter to tweak some of the coefficients to bring it up to ASCE-7 (and therefore IBC 2000) requirements.
RE: IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid?
http:/
The information is interesting yet does not mention too many countries.