New IBC 2012
New IBC 2012
(OP)
I just received an ICC product catalog in the mail with the new IBC 2012 code for sale.
Does anyone know what level of errata the IBC's typically have (I'm still hurting from the AISC 13th Edition - 2 hour errata on their first printing).
In other words, does it make sense to wait for a second or third printing or are the IBC's generally better than the other material spec publications out there?
Does anyone know what level of errata the IBC's typically have (I'm still hurting from the AISC 13th Edition - 2 hour errata on their first printing).
In other words, does it make sense to wait for a second or third printing or are the IBC's generally better than the other material spec publications out there?






RE: New IBC 2012
RE: New IBC 2012
RE: New IBC 2012
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask
RE: New IBC 2012
I am going to wait a year or and let the dust settle.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask
RE: New IBC 2012
BA
RE: New IBC 2012
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask
RE: New IBC 2012
Changing codes costs cities $$, and they don't have the money right now.
Personally, I think the ICC and engineering community would be better served to spread out the code cycle to 5 years. I would be OK if they rose the price to accommodate for the loss of income that they would have.
RE: New IBC 2012
RE: New IBC 2012
The ICC has become a self serving industry unto themselves, rather than an operation which serves to truly improve the construction industry. They don't automatically deserve an income, they should be producing something that helps us do our jobs better and safer, and until they can prove that they do, we should make every effort to make their life as unprofitable as they make ours. Think of all the time we collectively waste learning and arguing about the intent of the newest and bestest, and what section that topic is now located in. We aren't producing appreciably better buildings with each new ed., we should have enough time to really learn to use the one we have. I'd vote for a 7 or 10 year cycle, with some serious synchronizing btwn. the various codes, and addendums if something serious is found to be in error.
Tell your city, your state building dept., your legislature, whoever is in charge of adopting this new code, that for all its cost and disruption, it is not going to cause appreciably better buildings, and not adopting it will not cause buildings all around them to come falling down. We will end up producing better, safer projects if we actually become familiar with and comfortable using the codes we already have in hand.
RE: New IBC 2012
The thing that gripes me on all of this is that the deadline for change proposals for IBC 15 will be Jan. 1,2012 before anyone has even had a chance to use and study IBC 12.
I would certainly support an extended issue cycle. ASCE 7 is pushing towards a 5 year edition period. Hopefully others will pick up on that philosophy as well.
RE: New IBC 2012
They do a better job lobbying than us as they've become a very good cottage industry.
RE: New IBC 2012
IMHO, it is all about money. Also, with all due respect to PhDs, I vote to keep them from tinkering with the codes.
Seriously, five year edition is reasonable. I got my copy of ASCE 7-10 last year during the AISC conference. It has been sitting on my shelf since then. Did they go crazy with the wind chapter or what?
Regards,
Lutfi
RE: New IBC 2012
RE: New IBC 2012
ASCE plans to add another wind design method in the next edition. IBC 2009 already has the "Alternate All Heights". Its never going to end.
RE: New IBC 2012
The different entities, industries interested in some field would provide at any time for state of the art of the science of construction.
Just my view.