If a building’s lateral system is seriously damaged, and if that lateral system is found to have been deficient, should it be upgraded during the course of already substantial repairs instead of just put back to its deficient state? The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations says yes. The International Existing Building Code’s development committee says yes. FEMA says yes. And code officials who voted at the International Building Code hearings in February, by an overwhelming majority, say yes.

In a letter published in the August issue of Structural Engineer, Gary R. Searer and Terrence F. Paret said no. Specifically, they urged disapproval of IBC code change G206-07/08, proposed by the NCSEA committee that I chair.

Their arguments are important, as they were when Mr. Searer presented them with equal vigor at the hearings in February. But on balance, they did not overturn the consensus that damage and repair should sometimes trigger upgrade, and that IBC Chapter 34 should include such provisions. The challenge—to NCSEA in developing proposal G206 and to ICC members in approving it—is to find the triggering conditions and the triggered requirements that best serve the intent of the code. G206 does that reasonably well; certainly it takes the essential first step of introducing this idea into the IBC. The nation’s code officials, the people most directly responsible for public policy on matters of building safety, agree.

Proposal G206 has consensus support because it is careful and limited in its reach and because it is based on precedents in the IEBC and in local regulations from progressive building departments around the country. I encourage readers to review the proposal in its entirety (online at www.iccsafe.org). While Mr. Searer’s and Mr. Paret’s arguments have already been rebutted persuasively through the ICC hearing process, the following few deserve brief attention:

• "Loss of capacity" is undefined, they argue, and therefore inadequate as a trigger. True, this trigger is not ideal, but it has been used successfully. I am reminded of what Winston Churchill said of democracy—that it’s the worst form of government, except for all the others.
• Lateral system upgrades should not be triggered, they argue, unless the damage was caused by wind or earthquake. I agree, but code officials and local governments support G206 in part because it complies with FEMA policy that upgrade triggers must be independent of cause.
• They assert that engineers "manipulate" the code "to drive up … consulting fees." It is worth remembering that G206 was approved, not by engineers, but by code officials.
• They suggest that safety improvements to existing buildings should come only through legislative mandates. On the contrary, effective risk reduction programs combine voluntary, mandatory, and triggered upgrades. The IBC already triggers structural upgrades for certain additions, alterations, and changes of occupancy.

I look forward to hearing from any reader with further questions about proposal G206 or about participating in NCSEA’s code development efforts. I may be contacted through www.ncsea.com.

David Bonowitz, S.E., Chair of the Existing Buildings Subcommittee of NCSEA’s Code Advisory Committee