IBC2000 versus UBC'97: Is UBC'97 still valid? 6

[IJR]

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

 

[mrMikee]

Neither of these codes are enforceable unless they are adopted by local governments by reference, so it depends on what is required by your local building authority. The ICBO (UBC) and ICC (IBC) are simply code writing organizations. Your first step should be to find out exactly what is required by the city, state, etc., government units.

Regards,
-Mike

 

[SacreBleu]

I agree with Mike. Just because it is called International Building Code, it does not mean that is applicable to the whole world by default.

 

[TFL]

this bring up the interesting point of where exactly does the "International" building code apply that is not the US and if so where are the maps for wind and seismic loads. If we call it international, should there not be some info for regions outside of the usa.

 

[whyun]

Most states in the United States have adopted the IBC series as a model code, with the exception of California and perhaps few others. At this point, 2001 California Building Code uses 1997 UBC as a base with their State ammendments. In the next code cycle, it is highly likely that IBC will be adopted by California.

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.

 

[JStephen]

Here in the US, it's not uncommon for cities to specify a particular year of the UBC. So you may find in Podunk, Texas, that the 1992 UBC is THE building code. No matter if it's outdated or what.

As to the "International"- I think it comes from the organization, not the application. Going to ICBrg, I find myself redirected to

http://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.

 

[whyun]

This is a link to obtain more information related to the origin of ICC:

http://www.iccsafe.org/government/Toolkit/01-background.pdf

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...

 

[mrMikee]

As a point of interest, this links to the ICC code adoption site:

http://www.iccsafe.org/government/adoption.html

Local jurisdictions should always be contacted directly however, for updated regulations, local variations, special conditions, etc.

-Mike

 

[whyun]

As I stated earlier, I am from the United States and am totally ignorant on building design outside of the country. I heard a long time ago that the Japanese Building Code was based on the old version of the Uniform Building Code at first, then it evolved into what it is today. Does anybody have a more specific information on this topic?

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.

 

[mrMikee]

This is an interesting question. IJR said he is not in the US. What if where he lives the codes don't have seismic provisions, or what if his building code doesn't cover structural design at all? How does IJR fulfill his professional responsibilities then?

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

 

[whyun]

To my understanding, in many developing and underdeveloped nations, building code does not exist. In fact, even in developed nations such as the United States, the history of building codes does not go back more than 100 years.

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?

 

[ThomasH]

Most of the countries i Europe have their own codes: British Standard in the UK, DIN in Germany and so on.

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

 

[SacreBleu]

Whyun,
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.

 

[whyun]

SacreBleu,

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.

 

[structsafe]

As to the original question, you can use whatever code you feel comfortable using, so long as the AHJ approves. I think it would be a mistake to stick to the old code under any circumstance (unless required by the aforementioned Podunk, TX building official), since doing so assumes that the code hasn't improved. Particularly with seismic, our knowledge is vastly better as time progresses and events are investigated.

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/

 

[JAE]

sorry....AHJ? who's that?

 

[IJR]

Thanks to everyone

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

 

[mrMikee]

One thing I like about the IBC seismic provisions is that the science behind the spectral response acceleration maps is probably something that can be repeated in any geographic location. As structsafe indicated above the USGS site says that maps for Iraq, Kuwait, Sumatra, Indonesia, and parts of India either are available or will be soon. It would be nice if there was more common grounds in codes. That's not to say the UBC is not, it's just that I never worked with the 94 and 97 codes myself and can't say. I used the UBC in the 80s for work in the US because in my opinion they were best where seismic was concerned.

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

 

[SacreBleu]

mrMikee,
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.

 

[whyun]

I found a link to a pdf file that shows the following: Year 2000 comparison of building codes in other countries whose seismic provisions are modeled after the Uniform Building Code

http://www.seaoc.org/Pages/committees/seismpdfs/UBC/ICETaskO5b.pdf

The information is interesting yet does not mention too many countries.