New IBC 2012 4

[JAE]

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?

 

[flight7]

Check

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/Pages/errata.aspx

and compare the past editions to your expectations. I haven't found IBC to be too painful, but I only bother to update the structural chapters.

 

[SLTA]

I would definitely wait. It takes forever to replace all the pages, if you do all instead of just structural.

 

[msquared48]

I'm not going to by mine until after December 21, 2012.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[msquared48]

Seriously though, most jurisdictions will not even adopt the new code until around 1 July 2013.

I am going to wait a year or and let the dust settle.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[BAretired]

If nobody buys the first edition, the ICC may decide to pass on subsequent editions. What would you guys do then?

BA

 

[msquared48]

Use the old one and wait...

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[hawkaz]

How many municipalities have adopted the 2009 IBC yet? Most around me are still on the 2006. The 2012 isn't even on my radar screen yet.

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.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

I still see 2003 sometimes...Just wait.

 

[dhengr]

What would happen if nobody bought the new 2012 ed.? Come-on JAE, don’t encourage the ICC to produce more confusion, just for their own enrichment. Let the ICC sit with that edition, get it cleaned up and corrected, and then learn that they can’t keep foisting this crap on us when it only offers additional, new complexity to our lives, without really offering much in the way of improvements or tangible value.

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.

 

[ajh1]

At the state code level, 22 states are currently on IBC 09, 17 states on IBC 06, 2 on IBC 03, and 9 states that don't have any form of state code. Obviously municipalities vary more widely depending upon the state requirements for municipality adoption. At least one state (Minnesota) and probably another (Ohio) will jump directly from IBC 06 to IBC 12 skipping IBC 09 entirely.
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.

 

[RacingAZ]

dhengr,

They do a better job lobbying than us as they've become a very good cottage industry.

 

[Lutfi]

All,

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

 

[ToadJones]

just wait a few years and then post questions on the forum like "hey, what changed in section 2301.12 in the 2012 IBC from 2009?"

 

[cap4000]

Lufti

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.

 

[ishvaaag]

I agree that the mandatory items should be revised after more ample periods. I think they should also be performance codes, not specific way of design -or calculation- codes; in other words, anything meeting the target performance should be allowed as long as demonstrable per the state of the art of the science of construction. The recommended ways of proceeding with the proof should become annexes, non mandatory items, to which other could be alternative.

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.