A report on the current code and standards efforts

It is a daunting task to stay current and coordinated in codes and standards. There are many standards for all of the various structural materials and systems, as well as the loads and combinations for which they must be designed. Each standard and code grows with each new revision, and the rate at which revisions come means that they can sometimes arrive before anyone has had the opportunity to use the previous version on a real project. Add to this the challenge of parochial modifications in local adoptions of model codes and differences in local building codes and it is really a mess.

Model building code agencies generally revise and republish their documents every three years, which all but obligates standard developing organizations to work at a similar pace. Yet there is no need for revisions to codes and standards every three years—the design community and construction industry cannot absorb and accommodate the changes that quickly. Even the organizations that develop and maintain these codes and standards themselves find it difficult to be responsive on that frequent recurrence interval—the pace of change has at times created inconsistencies and conflicts between two related codes and standards. Furthermore, the local adoptions of a model code to serve as a building code in a given jurisdiction can often lag by more than the three-year cycle.

It is an impossible challenge, and yet it remains necessary for all parties to stay current and coordinated. Surely something’s got to give, as we can’t possibly know everything that is, or ever was, in all of these codes and standards.

Synchronicity

There is at least one area where codes and standards are headed in a positive direction. As thoroughly coordinated as they have ever been, the steel design requirements in Chapter 22 of the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) are presented in total in only a few lines more than two and a half pages (one page for structural steel). This reduction in page count came about because of a few things that combined to make this possible:

Coordination—A deliberate effort to coordinate has been the norm for almost two decades between the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) and the American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) in the development of ANSI/AISC 360-05 Specification for Structural Steel Buildings and ASCE 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. The volunteers on each of these organization’s responsible committees have collaborated with the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) process to coordinate in advance of the writing of codes and standards. BSSC sponsors the development of the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) Provisions, which serves as a pre-standard for seismic design requirements in the United States.

Since similar people participate in that process as in the AISC and ASCE/SEI processes, it has been possible to make sure loading and system requirements match up with design and detailing requirements before they are written. As a result, the assumptions in the steel standards correspond to the assumptions in the loading standard, and the steel standards simply can be incorporated by reference into the IBC without need to make extensive coordinating modification in doing so.

There were many people involved in this effort, but the lion’s share of the credit should go to Hank Martin, retired director of codes and standards for the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). Martin saw this future as a possibility 30 years ago and worked tirelessly to make it the reality it is today.

Concurrent development—The year 2005 was a banner year for the release of new standards and codes, as almost every standard developing organization did so with its major standards and codes. While this might sound like it’s more hindrance than help, it’s actually quite a positive thing.

In addition to ANSI/AISC 360-05 and ASCE 7-05, several other codes and standards were all revised in parallel, including ANSI/AISC 341-05 Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 358-05 Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Moment Frames for Seismic Applications, and the American Concrete Institute’s ACI 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete. AISC 303-05 Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges was also updated at the same time. That all these documents were in concurrent development made it possible to synchronize and coordinate them. This streamlined the IBC referencing process even further, and produced a more uniform set of design requirements throughout the United States.

Reduction in the number—There has been a reduction in the number of different standards in structural steel. There used to be separate documents for allowable stress design (ASD), load and resistance factor design (LRFD), hollow structural sections (HSS), single angles (in both ASD and LRFD), and seismic design. The format of each document was usually different, and all were updated on different cycles. Today, these separate documents have been reduced to a set of two that work well together and have clear delineation between them.

Free download—There is no need to repeat the steel standards and codes in the model building code and similar documents, because they are all now available as free downloads from AISC at www.aisc.org/epubs. Download them as PDFs that can go with you wherever your laptop goes. Print them if you like paper copies (there is even a reproduction permission letter you can download if you want to use a print shop to do that work for you).

Familiar format—Even better still, the 13th Edition AISC Steel Construction Manual and AISC Seismic Design Manual are based upon these codes and standards and provide a familiar feel that makes it practical to pick up and use them. This is equally true for ASD and LRFD. Each of these manuals is available to AISC members for $175 at www.aisc.org/bookstore.

Uniformity—Model building code agencies and local adoptions of the model building code are increasingly foregoing modifications to national consensus standards. Change proposals are being referred to the appropriate standard developing organizations for consideration—all in the interest of keeping code requirements similar and uniform throughout the United States.

The design community and construction industry should thank the volunteers and staff who worked on these standards, especially because of how coordinated and cohesive all of these documents have become. It was a great deal of extra work to make it happen, but it did happen and it was well worth it.

Let’s take it slow

Also good news, the hustle and bustle of the typical code-change cycle is poised to slow down. All of the standards developing organizations have heard the complaints of the profession about the pace of change. I also sense that there is great interest on the part of most (if not all) of the standards developing organizations in slowing down the rate of change to the benefit of the profession. With all that work behind us, now is a perfect time to look to the future and plan for what is needed—and to avoid what is not.

Changes should be made where new information shows us what is wrong with what we are doing now. Changes should also be made when design and construction can be simplified and economized. Such changes, however, should be deliberate and meaningful. Change for the sake of change should be avoided.

In developing AISC 360-05, the AISC Committee on Specifications utilized a set of typical buildings and other structures as example problems to apply and test the proposals and provisions as they were being developed. This strategy was of great benefit in refining requirements into practical and understandable provisions. It also allowed us to better weigh the potential benefits against the scope for each change, thereby helping to eliminate changes that would offer little benefit.

At AISC, as at every other standards developing organization, the release of a new standard or code also signals the start of development and coordination work on the next version. But there is a caveat now: Chairman of the AISC Committee on Specifications Jim Fisher has challenged the committee to change as little as possible. This was a welcome goal to the committee. I’m sure it will be even more welcomed by the profession.

Charles J. Carter, S.E., P.E., is the chief structural engineer for the American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. He can be reached at carter@aisc.org.