2015 Issue

56 I N DISCUSSING MY profession with a friend recently, I ex- plained how we are bound (and protected) by building codes. I mentioned that it is a bit of a challenge keeping up with code changes, since a new code comes out every three years. I was a bit taken aback by his response. “Wow”, he said, “Can’t someone write a building code that lasts longer than three years?” His response prompted immediate reflection. That conversation has led me to re-think my stance on the necessity of such short code cycles. Considering that wemeasure the age of the Bible, the Torah and the Quran in centuries, it seems reasonable to question the need for a new building code every three years. Before I go any further, let me clarify something. I am not going to argue here against the complexity of the building codes. On this issue I sit silently on the sideline and applaud (with quiet golf applause) the fact that the code is too complex to be understood by someone without proper training and experience. In our pro- fession, we have few barriers to entry better than a complex code. Strong barriers to entry are needed to keep demand for our services higher than the supply. That results in higher pay, and of that I am a proponent. But why do we need a new building code every three years? A popular answer to this question is that organizations promulgat- ing codes need the revenue stream to stay in business. Surely it is necessary for those organizations to sell codes occasionally, and nobody begrudges them that. However, this motivationmay cloud their ability to judge impartially the value of publishing a new code. Organizations should not exist for the sole purpose of selling codes and standards; they should be able to provide value to the design community (and be compensated for it) in other ways. Probably the most relevant response to the question of short code cycles relates to our increasing body of knowledge. For instance, new technology enables advanced numerical methods tobe utilized in design. Research, both academic and industrial, provides new options for structural systems. And natural disasters provide lessons regarding the performance of structural systems, thus presenting opportunities for improvement. Such advances should indeed be reflected in the building codes. But on what basis can we make the assumption that every three years we will have a sufficient increase in knowledge to justify changing the codes? Before a code is changed, there should be a requirement for a cost/benefit analysis. Too often the significant costs are ignored. Recently a person I knowdecided to estimate the cost of a complete building code. Starting with the IBC, she tallied the cost to acquire every referenced standard, plus the references in those standards. She stopped when she got to $100,000. Of course, nobody spends that much on these documents, but the point is still valid. Beyond that, time for learning a new code is a large cost to design firms, Changing Building Codes – Are They Really That Bad? By David Pierson, S.E., SECB