Someone has to say it, so it might as well be me. The IBC is an unusable agglomeration of gobbledygook that should only be wished upon our enemies. There, now it’s out in the open.
I’m not normally a complainer but my frustration with the IBC has gone terminal. What pushed me over the edge is that I’m updating my book, STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS FOR THE NON-ENGINEER, and am trying to explain in simple language the concepts of loads and combinations of loads. Loads are dictated by the IBC. In order for me to get it right for my readers I have to first get it straight in my own mind. I’ve come to the conclusion that this cannot be done.
The IBC is, of course, an acronym for the International Building Code, 2006, published by the International Code Council (ICC). The ICC also publishes the IRC (International Residential Code), an equally vexing and impossible quagmire of gibberish, along with other books in the International Code Family.
Do I exaggerate? Possibly. I’m sure there is some good, useful information in the IBC and IRC somewhere; the trick is finding it. Regardless, my criticisms are not made casually. I’ve spent hundreds of hours in the I-Codes as an author, a seminar instructor, and practicing engineer. It should not take me or anyone else hundreds of hours to glean a few concepts from any code book. Here’s what I’m talking about:
- The IBC is not just one book, it is over 500 other referenced publications. For example, wind and seismic loads are found in ASCE Publication 7-05. Concrete design is in ACI publications 318-05, 216.1-97, 530-05, etc., etc. They’re all listed in the 19, single spaced, size 6 font pages of chapter 35. I tried to count them but glossed over and lost track at 315. Even if you only need half; no, even if you only need one-tenth of them that’s still 50 other publications. And none of those comes cheap – most cost over $100. What a sure way to guarantee that your code will never be read.
- Much of the desirable part of the code (oxymoron?) does not apply to you, though you are tantalized into thinking it does. For example, most builders I know do residential work and they think there is an easy-to-use code just for them called the International Residential Code (IRC). What they don’t know is that as soon as their project escalates to more than a square box with one door and one window the IRC no longer applies. The worst part is that you need a PhD to figure out what really falls under the IRC and what doesn’t. I wrote an article about this in 2005 entitled “When Is Engineering Required Per the IRC” (see Free Items at www.constructioncalc.com).
- You never know if you’re looking at the right part of the code. The IBC references so many other parts of itself and the 500+ external publications you can never be sure you’re in the right place. For example, my company just launched an upgraded footing calculator, FootingCalc v3.0. You’d think that to design a code-compliant footing you would just go to IBC chapter 18, Soils and Footings? Not a prayer. You must first go to ASCE 7-05 for load combinations. You’ll also spend quite a bit of time in ACI 318-08 because a footing is made of concrete. Now you need to bounce around in chapter 18 to be sure you’ve covered every eventuality that your footing may ever encounter: adequate depth, frost protection, setback from slopes, seismic ties (but only required for Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F. Cripes! Now back to Chapter 16 for seismic requirements, which refers you to ASCE 7-05 again.) It doesn’t matter whether you’re designing a joist, post, shear wall, footing, whatever, this reference / cross-reference procedure will drive you batty. And worse, it is very unlikely that you’ll do all that cross-referencing exactly correctly.
- The most important parts of a code should not be in footnotes. The IBC and IRC use lots of tables. Tables are great because the information in them is easy to find and use. But beware, you can’t use much of the information in those tables directly. There are lots of size 0.1 font superscripts directing you to plentiful footnotes in size 2 font on the pages following the tables. Footnotes that, many times, reference you to other parts of the code and can drastically change the number you just plucked from the table. One of my favorites is in the shear wall table in chapter 23. Footnote “i” tells you that if you are in Seismic Design Category D, E, F, and shear design value exceed 350 pounds per lineal foot, you must use 3x or larger boundary members. How many out there know what that really says – if you’re alert enough to even notice it in the first place?
- Designing per code is flat-out too complicated. Here’s a confession: engineers love shortcuts. Here’s an assumption: so do architects and builders. Here’s a truism: all of us work in a capitalistic system that encourages speed. Speed begets corner cutting. The I-codes have become so complicated, so oppressive, so burdensome that no one applies them correctly. When I say no one, I really mean no one. There is no human being capable of performing a code-perfect design while maintaining competitiveness. For example, I know how much I can charge to engineer a single-family residence if I want to stay in business. To design to the letter of the code, I’d have to charge two or three times what I do. And even then my design would be different than any other engineer’s because his interpretation of code would be different. So what happens instead is that we take an educated guess at what’s important, maybe read a section or two of code, cross our fingers and go for it. Code officials generally know less than we do so we get away with it. It’s tempting to blame the design professional or code official for this travesty but anyone with a lick of common sense knows that we are all human, susceptible to taking the easy way out in pursuit of profit. Lay the blame instead on our ridiculous codes.
- There is no opportunity for a competing code. The I-codes enjoy a monopoly in our country. If you’re the ICC, how cool is that?
Lest I whine without a proposed solution, he are a few ideas for the ICC:
- Simplify. Less is more. Go back and study the Uniform Building Code from the 70’s and 80’s.
- Interview real, practicing engineers, architects, and builders. Find out what parts of the code they actually use. Toss out the rest. For example, I’ve never known a framer to actually read the 3-page table, 2304.9.1, listing the number of nails required to connect pieces of lumber together (that table, by the way, has no fewer than 16 footnotes.)
- Stop trying to solve every possible eventuality with a one-size-fits-all document. It cannot be done.
- Paint in broad strokes. Regulate general concepts not minutiae. Let design professionals fill in the details specific to their job. Use performance specs, not exacting, precise ones.
- You don’t need three-decimal-precision when you’re talking about wind and earthquake forces. Wind and earthquake forces on a building are a guess, at best. Why, then, use such complicated equations and procedures to hone down those forces to 1/1000th accuracy?
- Omit all footnotes. If it’s that important say it in the text of the code.
- Use no cross-referenced publications. If it’s that important put it in the code. Don’t make us spend thousands of dollars every code cycle on new external publications. Your code costs plenty already.
- Make separate complete codes for allowable stress design (ASD) and strength design (LRFD). Most engineers prefer one or the other. No one else knows the difference anyway.
- Hire and pay third party beta testers that include: builders, engineers, architects, code officials, and designers. I know this would increase the cost of the code but I’d be happy to pay more for a code that has passed muster with real, live practicing professionals.
And if you tell me, “It can’t be done, Tim.” I know a few entrepreneurs who think differently and may be interested in a share of your monopolized, worldwide market.
Copyright Tim K. Garrison, P.E., 2009
All rights reserved.
If our building codes are broken as you suggest, and we strongly disagree with that assumption, you can be part of the solution by participating in the code development process. In that arena, you can object to what you see as an “agglomeration of gobbledygook,” propose changes to clarify, and discuss your issues with professional colleagues and peers. Code content is the result of input from code officials, architects, engineers, designers and many others from inside and outside of the construction industry.
As you may know, the International Code Council uses the governmental consensus process to develop its building safety and fire prevention codes. It is an open, inclusive process that allows input from all individuals and groups. Committees hear all code change proposals. Final decisions are made by International Code Council voting members—code enforcement and fire officials who, with no vested interests beyond public safety, represent the public’s best interest. An appeals process allows anyone to appeal an action or inaction relating to a code change.
For more information about the Council’s Code Development Process and how you can be a part of it, visit http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes.
Steve Daggers
VP Communications
International Code Council
Mulch,
Your piece on “Broken Building Codes” is shear (Sic) genius!
I don’t have the time (translation: economic woes) to research such a writing, but if I could, I would.
Your writing hits the nail on the head and countersinks it. As a competent engineering and building contractor building to code daily, I see first hand the discrepancy in current code continuously. To try to keep up with them is ludicrous. What I have chosen to do is keep up with a smaller section of the code, and be competent at it: concrete and structures. That in itself is a menagerie of confusion, and I find few who have close to real competency in them – thus, I make a living.
In our world, the building department and reality are our two checkpoints. The first, are usually a group of well meaning government employees who cannot possibly keep up the the myriad of changes, and vast knowledge required to know all code, so they rely on either outside plan check companies (that cash in on the amount of minutiae in the building code, so they can charge hourly to review and make comments on drawings), or two, the same format of review with a few exceptions from the previous 20 years or so. The second is less cunning, and more direct – mother nature herself. That’s where the rubber meets the road. We don’t get call backs on previous work for code violations, but we do get call backs on water leaks, wind damage, and my favorite topic “doughnut construction modifications”. The first category usually are related to poor existing materials, ie bad substrate, corroded or weak surfaces to apply membranes, sealers and hardware to etc. The second is the weekend warrior that invites his buddies over to help him “remodel”, and pays them in Schlitz Malt Liquor, or worse yet, the low bidder, who does slipshod work, blames the previous company, charges extensively and splits the scene never to be seen again. The honest tax paying contractor that did work two years ago, and still has his phone number, is the obvious candidate for blame for repair.
The overhaul you recommend will be instantaneously fixed, by having the ICC code folks attempt to competitively design a structure or two, and realize that it (Code) needs “mayor suryery”. Then develop a team consisting of the aforementioned groups of active design professionals, builders and architects, and offer them a royalty based on a percentage of their volumes and copies downloaded or purchased, and liable for any failures inherent in their design criteria.
At any rate, it’s refreshing reading your well thought out information, but the likely hood of getting any change without championing a campaign is nil. However, I will be the first in line to be a staunch supporter and leader in the effort!
If you don’t mind, I think I’ll retire, and pull down a Schlitz myself.
Reg
Mark Garrison MG Constructors & Engineers Inc. 15650 Vineyard Blvd. , Suite A, #232 Morgan Hill , CA 95037 (408)842-5599 Office (408)590-7737 Cell (888)234-8057 Fax
Mr. Garrison,
I appreciated this article and the comments.
As a practicing PE, you are clearly focused on actual solutions and getting from point A to point B. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the regulatory entities.
As a building designer, I not only deal with the IBC and IRC, but also state (Oregon) adjustments to the IBC and IRC (they call them “blended codes” whatever that means), the NFPA (they are willing to accept me as a member for only $150 per year and promise to help me navigate their codes… what a great deal), local codes and last, but not least, local land use ordinances for the various jurisdictions in which I work. Each of these entities is constantly busy churning out new regulations in order to keep us safer, better, or whatever.
As a small child playing with blocks, one of the first things I learned was – don’t put a lot of weight up high. It seems that things can become somewhat unstable. Unfortunately, we have yet to learn that as a society. As regulations and regulators multiply, navigation (successful application of the regulations) becomes increasingly difficult. The people at the top, the regulators, are able to exist and thrive in a myopic world, focused on their particular set of rules or concerns. Unfortunately, most of them do not get to experience the broader spectrum of attempting to navigate the entire system. There is simply no motive for them to consider the larger regulatory picture.
I’m not saying anybody is bad, the regulators are simply doing what most lifeforms do, exist and thrive in their environment.
I do not hate the codes, but I think it is important to understand the actual reasons they have grown from a useful tool, into a monster. All one has to do is follow the money. The code industry has grown into a huge self-perpetuating business, one rationalization at a time. I think the theory is, don’t mind the big picture, it’ll take care of itself. I would agree. I believe we call it natural selection.
We do have some code competition between the ICC and NFPA, but that doesn’t seem to help… maybe they’ve worked something out, I don’t know. What I do know, after over 40 years in this industry (the first 20 with a hammer), is that we are quickly reaching a point where the complexity of the regulatory system will override the larger concern, which is quality of the structure.
I would like to see us start over with a clear destination (other than perpetual employment) in mind. I would like to see a component of that destination be a clear navigable code where components actually relate to one another and work together (like a building). It should be a tool rather than a burden.
Thanks for letting me rant,
Rick