Structural Engineers Association of Northern California Newsletter - March 1996

Message from the President

Building Code 2000

By now, all SEAONC members should be aware that the 1997 UniForrn Building Code (UBC) will probably be the last edition of that document. ICBO, together with BOCA and SBCCI are gearing up to issue a single model building code to replace the three regional codes that have been in place for many years. The new Intemational Building Code (IBC) is scheduled to be issued for the first time in the year 2000. It will be developed by a joint congress comprised of delegates from the three model code organizations. This congress plans to form the new code by pulling the "best" provisions from each of the existing model code documents, as they exist in 1997.

SEAOC has been aware of, and concerned about, this planned phase out of the UBC for some time. There are a number of causes for this concern. SEAOC and ICBO have enjoyed a unique symbiotic relationship over the years, which has permitted SEAOC to be an active participant in the development and maintenance of structural provisions oF the code. In particular, the seismic design provisions contained within the UBC are almost entirely based on the recommendations of SEAOC's Seismology Committee. This allowed SEAOC's members to control their own destiny in what could perhaps be considered the most challenging area of their practice, designing structures to resist severe earthquakes. SEAOC clearly perceived that the same opportunity would likely not exist with the IBC. Further, since both the BOCA and SBCCI codes are based on the NEHRP Provisions, rather than SEAOC's Blue Book, it seemed almost certain that the IBC would be based on this document. Aithough they are based on a common resource document, the ATC3.06 report, the SEAOC and NEHRP Provisions are significantly different from each other. ThereFore, upon adoption of the new code, California engineers would be faced with a massive re education challenge. Finally, many SEAOC members familiar with the process used to develop the NEHRP Provisions believe that there is too much influence in this process by interests who do not have adequate knowledge of seismic design issues.

In order to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of adoption of the International Building Code on California practice, SEAOC embarked on a three pronged strategy a few years ago. The three primary strategies included: 1) political action on a national level to gain SEAOC a voice in the formation and maintenance of the Intemational Building Code; 2) a large interim revision to the UBC for 1997 in order to close a significant portion of the gap between the SEAOC and NEHRP Provisions; and 3 )an active and coordinated participation In the Building Seismic Safety Council's 1997 Provisions Update Cycle to bring SEAOC's most important concepts into the NEHRP Provisions. While it is far to early to declare success, a number of important milestones were achieved in this past month.

For more than 2 years both the Seismology and Building Code committees have been laboring on a massive code change for the 1997 UBC, that will move it much closer to the approach taken by the NEHRP Provisions, but also incorporating SEAOC's latest thinking with regard to the development of system R factors, requirements for redundancy, and consideration of near source ground motion characteristics. I am very pleased to announce that in a meeting last month, SEAOC's proposals were largely endorsed by ICBO's Lateral Forces Committee. This is a key step in the code change process and greatly improves the chance that this code change will be successful at ICBO's annual meeting next September.

SEAOC has also met with success on the political level. The National Institute of Building Sciences, the parent organization for the Building Seismic Safety Council, has put forth a proposal to the International Building Code Conference, that a Joint working committee comprised of representatives of BSSC, SEAOC, ASCE and the three model code organizations be established to take the 1997 NEHRP Provisions, convert these to code language and use this as the basis for the seismic provisions of the developing IBC. This is a key success for SEAOC in that ensures we will have a voice in the formation of the new code. It has also been proposed that a similar committee be established in perpetuity, to provide for maintenance of the new code, again ensuring that SEAOC will have a continuing role, at the national level. The SEAOC Board of Directors has ratified this concept and appointed the current State Seismology Committee Chair, David Bonneville, as SEAOC's first delegate to this new committee.

Finally, it appears we may also be successful in making critical changes to the 1997 NEHRP Provisions. BSSC's Provisions Update Committee met in Denver last month and each subcommitte presented its preliminary proposal for Provisions Update. As chair of the TS2 (General Design Committee) I presented most of the changes deemed critical by the SEAOC Seismology Committee. Although no formal vote was taken, these changes generally seemed to meet with approval.

When SEAOC embarked on this program several years ago, it seemed that the odds against success were insurmountable. Yet the goal for this program was so important that it seemed worth the challenge. Success has not yet been achieved; however, for the first time, it appears that success may actually be achievable. More to follow.

The Federalization of SEAOC

A hot topic of discussion at the SEAOC Board of Directors meeting a few weeks ago, was the perception and concern expressed by a number of members that the State Association was becoming increasingly powerful and perhaps oppressive to the regional associations, such as SEAONC. It is clear that since an Executive Director was a hired a few years ago, and a state Association office established, costs have gone up. Further, with the establishment of more active state committees dealing with publications, continuing education, professional practice and even the convention, resentment was developing that the power and strength of each of the regional organizations was being threatened. These are all valid concerns, worthy of discussion.

SEAOC and our regional associations (SEAONC, SEAOSC, SEAOCC, and SEAOSD) are unique organizations providing a forum for professional and technical development, a political power base for advancement of the profession and a demilitarized zone where commercial competitors can meet in a non competitive environment to socialize and discuss issues of common concern. Our activity level and successes have been considerable and we are envied by a number of professional societies. However, the world is changing and if this formula is to remain successful in the future, it will be necessary to change our Association along with it.

In the previous section, I discussed SEAOC's apparent success in positioning ourselves advantageously for the adoption of the International Building Code. Other successes are also worth mentioning. The SAC Joint Venture is an important one. It was only through the presence of a strong state Association that this joint venture of the Applied Technology Council, California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering and SEAOC was established and successful in obtaining $10 million of federal funding to solve the problems in practice brought to light by the failure of moment connections In several hundred buildings during the Northridge Earthquake. CaliFomia engineers desperately need guidance on how to respond to this problem which SAC is providing. Further, a significant portion of the research and guideline development work is being performed by SEAOC members. The Vision 2000 effort is another example. In 1994, the Executive Office obtained funding from the California office of Emergency Services, to develop a framework for performance based seismic design of buildings. The resulting Vision 20OO document, published last year, is already being adopted, in part, by the 1997 NEHRP Provisions, re establishing SEAOC in a leadership role in the development of seismic provisions and assuring that the standards of practice in earthquake engineering are reflective of the opinions of SEAOC membership. These success could only have been obtained with the presence of a strengthened and more centralized state organization.

There are other important issues facing our members as well. These include state regulation affecting professional practice as well as procurement practices adopted by both the state and federal governments. In the past my columns have addressed issues related to the Board of Registration, at length. At last month's Board meeting, we learned that BORPELs is now considering abandonment of the Western States Structural Engineering Examination in favor of the nationally administered NCEE exams. Another threat is a pending initiative backed by the public employees unions, that would require the State of California to resort to fee based selection of professional consultants. These types of challenges can only be effectively met by a strong state association. SEAONC and our sister Associations in the other regions can not possibly hope to muster enough political muscle by ourselves to mount an adequate defense in these matters.

Yet the local organizations, such as SEAONC, must also continue to have a strong role in our professional practice. While all of our work to better the profession technically and commercially is important, it can not occur unless as individual professionals, we maintain cordial working relationships with each other in our volunteer committee activities. Most of the outstanding work peformed by the Seismology and Code committees, is initiated by small working groups at the local association levels. The SEAONC Business Forum, and similar forums in the other Associations, is the principle place where as associates, we can gather to discuss issues critical to the business of structural engineering. Finally, unless we continue to meet and converse as professional peers at our monthly meetings, the entire fabric that allows our profession to continue to be vital will disappear.

Thus, it was resolved by the Board, that a continually strengthened SEAOC is in the best interests of California Structural Engineers and vital to the professional health of structural engineering in California. In addition to political action, SEAOC should continue to develop new programs, including the formation of a statewide publications policy; statewide marketing of publications developed by the local associations; statewide development, of seminars and continuing education programs and even, potentially, obtaining insurance benefits at a group rate for SEAOC members. However, the importance and strength provided through the local organizations should not be overlooked, nor over run. Services provided by the State organization must be provided with the consent and permission of the four member associations.