ibc2000 versus ubc97 is ubc97 still valid

huangyhg

ibc2000 versus ubc'97: is ubc'97 still valid?
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
find a job or post a job opening
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  
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.
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.
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.
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  no matter if it's outdated or what.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 icbo.org, i find myself redirected to
this is a link to obtain more information related to the origin of icc:
as a point of interest, this links to the icc code adoption site:
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.
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