Our Building Codes - Good, Bad, or Ugly? 13

[BuildersEngineer]

What do YOU think of our building codes, the IBC and IRC?

I've been publicly critical of the International Codes over the years. Well, someone at the ICC finally saw one of my articles and lashed back with a letter to the editor:

This letter is in response to a two-part piece I wrote concerning minimum rebar requirements in foundations. Here are the two articles:

Part 1, Minimum Rebar In Footings, from Structural Engineer Magazine, January, 2013

Part 2, Minimum Rebar In Foundation Walls, from Structural Engineer Magazine, March, 2013


Of course the ICC would disagree with my opinion that their publications are convoluted and confusing. But to suggest that I be banned from voicing that opinion in the future is downright un-American.

How do you feel about the IBC and IRC?

* Are they user-friendly?
* Do they produce consistent results from user to user?
* Can you find what you're looking for easily and quickly?

I'll post the results from this poll on my blog at BuildersEngineer.com

Thanks for you time.

 

[BAretired]

I haven't used the IBC and IRC but it seems they share many similarities with the National Building Code in Canada which includes Part 9 - "Housing and Small Buildings".

User-friendly? Not really.

Consistent results? Not really. Others sometimes interpret the code differently than I.

I can't always find what I want easily or quickly, but when it comes to minimal reinforcement in concrete, I tend to use engineering judgment (which results in lack of consistency amongst engineers).

To avoid confusion over the term "plain concrete", perhaps we should be using either "unreinforced" or "lightly reinforced" concrete. Your "naked" concrete is good too.

BA

 

[hokie66]

As the "International" codes are not international, I can't comment. The ACI Code is more international, as it is the basis for many concrete codes worldwide. It is not always simple to interpret, and I still prefer the 1963 version. As to reinforcement, I have often used unreinforced footings, but never unreinforced walls.

That last paragraph in Mr. Bracken's letter is insulting to you, and is demeaning of his position.

 

[manstrom]

It seems like plain concrete specifically is an area that no one wants to touch.

I recently gave a similar presentation to my company to try and simplify the various requirements between IBC, IRC, ACI 318, and ACI 332.

I typically use 0.0018bh for footings under bending, and .0014bh for lightly loaded footings without bending. Walls designed under IBC get a minimum of 0.002 horizontal and 0.0012 for vertical. IRC design is a whole other story, still I prefer to use the IBC rules, but this can add up for a whole neighborhood and doesn't keep the cheapskate homebuilders happy. I'll use plain concrete footings where I can, but I still like "some" reinforcing.

The gray area occurs where engineers define "some" reinforcing. For a deep trench footing (say, 18"x24"), I'll put (2)#4s. I'll see other guys using (3)#5s top and bottom.

Unclear? No. I'd say technical. It's kind of like the tax code. If it was easy, you wouldn't have to hire a professional.

Does it produce repetitive results? No. But there are many different interpretations of the code and various regional practices. A Texas slab is different than a Virginia slab is different than a Vermont slab.

I can find the information easily because I know where to look. It takes some time to get comfortable with the code, though.

 

[msquared48]

In answer to your three questions, from over 40 years of dealing with building codes that have consistently maintained a drive over the years to become more and more complex and cumbersome, as well as expensive,

No, No, and No.

The famous "Appendix D" is the perfect example.



Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[Archie264]

BuildersEngineer,

Hear, hear! Thank you for being brave enough to address this very serious issue. The complexity of the codes is causing them to reach the point where people are starting to ignore them, not because they want to, mind you, but, rather, because they have businesses to run and deadlines to meet. Not everyone has time to unravel all the requirements required to figure out the code-writers' intent. So then they turn in desperation to magic black-box software that churns out results for them, hoping that it's correct. That doesn't make it right, but it is reality.

There is much more I could say but for now I'll try to confine myself to the following two additional points:

1. Your critic ascribed to you a motive of satire; what satire? I didn't see any; I saw direct criticism.

2. Your critic claimed that the code was not byzantine but also wrote that his organization teaches classes on how to navigate it. That's quite a self-contradicting position to hold.

 

[Ron]

Yes...the building codes are confusing and interpretable in different directions. I find Bill Brackens comments to be insulting and incorrect. As a structural engineer in Florida, he knows the Florida Building Code has so many inconsistencies and erroneous statements that it is, at times, incomprehensible. Multiple examples are available that show requirements in the High Velocity Hurricane Zone (HVHZ)are different than for other areas in Florida, yet they have no relationship whatsoever to wind. Another fine example....Exposure D as defined in ASCE 7 is no longer applicable in the Florida Building Code; however, it is clearly applicable to numerous barrier island conditions in Florida where the fetch is a mile or more. The Florida Building Code is a direct derivative of the IBC. It sucks.

I get thorougly pissed at the vague and wishy-washy provisions of the building code. The lack of definition is horrible. The loopholes contained in the code allow defective construction.

Don't get me started.

 

[lexpatrie]

I recall not particularly liking the article, but I don't see the point (and still don't) in replying in particular to the magazine. My appreciation for SE magazine has dwindled over the years from the original (from what proved to be a false nadir). Structure has material that is online, available "free" and reasonably succinct and to the point and more on target. SE Mag fixates on BIM, green, sustainability, IPD, and other irrelevancies (in my opinion) and is too fixated on glossy versus technical.

That said, I can't recall exactly what I didn't like about your article, but, unlike the average Weingart editorial, I don't recall rolling my eyes or trying not to gag.

As to the code being straight forward? No, and less and less now that is it losing content and punting to the referenced document. Let alone the poor level of achievement when it comes to ICC marking revisions of material THEY CONTROL, which is pretty spotty, and further, the quality of revisions is usually dismal as well, changing a "which" to a "that" would be a classic (and pandemic) example, along with the roughly five thousand revision marks in Chapter 21 because the Masonry people rearranged their acronyms (WHY?).

I guess you can call it a victory he didn't open an investigation into your competency (he merely draws the line at maligning your character and impugning your reputation). Now a competency inquest, that would be inconvenient. Honestly, technical publications and humor don't mix (it didn't occur to me you were being jocular).

No offense intended. I don't find plain concrete that dismaying, but as an engineer, I'm not all that interested in the subject as it's my discretion to put reinforcement in, and if it's not put it, it's a violation on the builders part. Now, were I a builder, the interest would be there.

--Brian.

 

[msquared48]

Ron:

Hurricanes suck too, but you still have to deal with them.

I have had the feeling for years, that the code changes are driven, not by safety, but by economics, getting closer and closer to the line of failure, so that any mistake in design become more life threatening due to the lack of available redundancy. I have seen this in comparing the requirements of the OSSC (Oregon Structural Specialty Code) with TIA 222-G.

I also feel that the code is just an educated guess. No one can predict exactly what will happen in any given event with a 100% degree of certainty. It all boils down to risk management, and, at times, ends up being a crap shoot. In any testing scenario, how do you know for certain that all the possible scenarios nature can contrive have been considered? You don't. You can only make an educated guess based on sometimes very limited experience and records. Nature has unlimited experience.

So, I set any guidelines from any code as a bare minimum and use my best judgement to solve the problem as I see it, not the ICC.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[RFreund]

The codes should be about 5 pages long and only contain headings and references to suggested manuals and research. Let the engineer choose the research and theory that he would like to follow and apply to his design. It would be interesting to see what happens fi there were no more cookbooks. The question then changes from "does this meet code?" to "is this safe?".

EIT

http://www.HowToEngineer.com

 

[Ron]

Mike...yup!

Codes are political more than technical. Even the model codes (IBC) are political.

The IBC is a "model code". It is a guideline upon which the real code should be based. Because of laziness, that usually doesn't happen. Most jurisdictions adopt a model code without revision. This is the predominate method of adopting the IBC. Some jurisdictions use the "model code" as the basis for their building code, making revisions to supposedly suit the needs of the locale. This is the approach that Florida and a few other states attempt. The Florida abomination is no better than the model code and only addresses a few of the necessary inclinations that might be somewhat unique to Florida. In that process, there are few if any improvements over the "model code".

 

[IDS]

I was interested in the Editor's note at the end of Part 2:

"Clarification of building code requirements, if necessary, can be readily obtained by contacting the building code authority having jurisdiction"

I don't work in the USA, but is that how it works? "Readily obtained", really?



Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

 

[JStephen]

My experience dealing with the building codes is limited to very specific areas (tanks, vessels, & similar.) I would agree that the codes in general are very lacking in those areas, and it has always seemed to me that they must have been written by people that never actually designed any of those items. I could go into some detail, but time & space don't permit it. However, on the bright side, I find that apparently nobody else knows how to interpret those sections either, so whatever interpretation you apply, nobody ever dares question it and it's good.

A couple items that come to mind, though...
You'll have Section 1.2.4.5.6.d.F(g)-Subsection H, titled "Widgets". Then the first sentence reads "Widgets shall conform to this section." Now wait just a second. What does that really tell you? Didn't the title already say that? You just paid a nickle for that sentence and it's absolutely meaningless.

And just exactly what does that standard apply to? That comes back to definitions. So you look up the definition of "structure" and it says "that which is built". IE, houses are structures. But then, so are cars, bicycles, steam engines, ball bearings, computers, hammers, hamburgers, wristwatches... Good thing they narrowed it down for me or I might have been confused.

 

[JStephen]

By the way, I just went back and read your two articles. Very telling is that the response letter there did not come back and say, "Oh, you're required to have rebar in Circumstance X but not in Circumstance Y". IE, he criticized your interpretation while declining to offer any constructive input as to what the codes actually meant.

The little note added at the end of the article is interesting, too, and indicates that code interpretation is available from local building officials. But if I remember correctly, ICBO offered code interpretations to building officials, but not to actual design engineers.

 

[hokie66]

One correction...the letter by Mr Bracken referred only to the first part of the article, and was published in the March issue, concurrently with the second part of the article. So more to come?

 

[briancpotter]

I'll go against the prevailing winds here and suggest the building codes do a fairly good job considering what they are, and that a lot of work clearly goes into making them usable.

Building codes have a REALLY hard job to do. Not only do they need to reflect the most accurate research in engineering design , but they need to do it in persnickety legal language so it can carry the force of law. I'm not a lawyer, but certainly the situation here is far better than with any other sort of laws, which require mountains of case history and argument to interpret. It would be really easy for them to be the most difficult to understand documents in existence, but they're often usable enough to be the only reference an engineer has for a particular subject, which I think says a lot.

As far as being more and more complex, that's true, but I'm not sure how much blame the code deserves for it. ASCE's wind provisions are certainly tedious to deal with, but they're also a lot more accurate than simply using, say, 30 psf everywhere (which is what you could use 100 years ago, give or take).

And as far as usability is concerned, there's lots and lots of things that are done. The inclusion of simplified calculation procedures where more difficult ones aren't warranted. The marking of where a section has changed from a previous section. Deliberately laying out charts and graphs so the most frequently used information is visible. The inclusion of commentary. Again, this is far far better than other sorts of legal documents.

Codes are obviously a far cry from perfect, and often ARE difficult to understand, and SHOULD be improved and made better. But I think they do a reasonably good job, all things considered.

Brian C Potter, PE

http://simplesupports.wordpress.com

 

[WillisV]

I remember reading the article and thinking, wow, if people spent near as much time and effort working on committees to improve the building codes as they do griping about them we'd all be in a much better position.

 

[BAretired]

Committees...therein lies the problem.

BA

 

[JStephen]

WillisV, you have a point, however that involvement is not always available to employees.

 

[Archie264]

Willis, that wasn't a gripe, was it?

On a serious note, the only people who have the time or opportunity to work on building code committees are academicians and people who work for large engineering firms. People with small firms, that is, businesses that they run, don't have the time or opportunity to do so. The best way they (we) can affect change is to voice our concerns to the relevant parties and amongst peers as is, for example, being done right here. In other words, we're not griping, we're trying to be constructive using the most accessible (and only practical) tool at our disposal.

Brian, your point was well-made and well-taken, but please remember that for lawyers legal language is their product. It isn't for engineers. For us it's that which we have to comply with. We have a separate product, namely, constructable building documents that we have to produce to get paid. If the legal profession was complaining about having to understand the mechanics of supporting the building in which their office was located before they were allowed to draft a will...well, then they'd know how some of us feel, perhaps.