Understanding and influencing the evolution of today s building code

Transcription

1 A SPECIAL MEMBERS-ONLY SUPPLEMENT No Understanding and Influencing the Evolution of Today s Building Code S3 S. K. Ghosh

2

3 Understanding and influencing the evolution of today s building code S. K. Ghosh This white paper discusses the recent history of building codes, their current status, what lies ahead, and how professionals in the building-materials industry can influence the standards as they evolve. It is based on an interview with S. K. Ghosh, president of S. K. Ghosh Associates Inc. in Palatine, Ill., that was held on December 18, Participants included Brian Miller of the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute in Chicago, Ill.; Jim Ahtes and Craig Shutt of James O. Ahtes Inc. in Rolling Meadows, Ill., and Chicago; and Marianne Methven of Hamilton Form in Fort Worth, Tex. It was subsequently reviewed and edited by the participants for accuracy and completeness, with additional material added. Finally, the paper was reviewed by PCI's Technical Activities Council. Basics of code compliance All codes are developed locally or at the state level and are then adapted as desired by each local government. Thus, each local municipality may have its own building code that may be significantly different from others around the country and, in fact, from the codes of neighboring towns. Local codes typically are based on the generally accepted code developed or adopted by the state, but they can have their own changes due to local needs, local pressures, and the code s local evolution. Editor s quick points n Model building codes and standards can affect whether precast concrete is used in a project. n Professionals in the precast concrete industry can influence codes and standards as they evolve. n This paper gives advice on how best to track and participate in building-code development. The code sets minimum standards for safety and health, describing various requirements that must be met to achieve those goals. Designs can and often do exceed the code in some ways, whereas in others, they must use the specific materials or products indicated to be recognized. Meeting code requirements is but one step in preparing a building for occupancy. To reach that goal, a developer or owner must do the following: PCI Journal Special Supplement S3

4 1. They apply for a construction permit from the local government (city, county, or state) and submit structural plans and specifications showing what is intended to be built. 2. A permit is issued if the plans and specifications are found to meet the legal building code. 3. Inspectors inspect the actual construction at the site to ensure that the construction materials and procedures follow the plans and specifications and are being completed in accordance with the requirements of the legal building code. 4. A certificate of occupancy is issued once all coderequired inspections have been completed and the building is judged to be in full compliance with all applicable requirements of the local code. Each state has the full authority to enact and enforce its building code, but it may delegate this authority to individual cities. This delegation has, in fact, happened so widely that some states do not even maintain a statewide building code. Illinois is one of nine states that do not have a statewide building code. Thirty years ago, there were more codes that were custom made for local municipalities. Today, about half of the states have retracted their delegation of codepromulgating authority to local jurisdictions in an effort to make codes more uniform and consistent between municipalities. Their goal is to ensure that there is equal protection for all citizens and that local influences have not made some local codes much stronger or restrictive than others of nearby jurisdictions. In states where a statewide code is in effect, the code may apply to the following: buildings based on construction methods such as factory-manufactured buildings all construction except for single-family dwellings a single or narrow aspect of building construction, such as fire safety all construction Each state takes its own approach. In California, the overall state code applies only to health-care and school facilities; cities and counties regulate all other construction. In Arizona, local jurisdictions are free to create their own codes. Typically, the state adopts its version of the building code and then cities adapt the state code with amendments. In many but not all states, the amendments must tighten requirements; they cannot loosen them or allow more options than the state code provides. Many states in the past used, and still use, a model building code, which was produced to help ensure that states and local governments did not have to create a building code from scratch. Model-code provisions were adopted and modified as each governmental body deemed necessary. The original model building code, called the National Building Code 1 (NBC), died out in 1984 because it was being updated only every 10 years and was not considered to be keeping pace with contemporary materials and procedures. History of today s code Until the emergence of the International Building Code 2 (IBC) in 2000, there were three regional model building codes used in the United States: The Uniform Building Code 3 (UBC) was used primarily in the West and was based in Whittier, Calif. It focused heavily on seismic issues, which were a key concern in the high-seismic zones of the West. The BOCA National Building Code 4 (BOCA/NBC), issued by Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA), was used primarily in the Northeast and Midwest and was based in Country Club Hills, Ill. The Standard Building Code 5 (SBC) was used primarily in the South and Southeast and was issued by the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) based in Birmingham, Ala. It focused heavily on wind loads due to the threat of hurricanes. Each state adopted one of these model codes in general. However, there were exceptions. The larger cities in Texas used the UBC, while the SBC was adopted in the rest of the state. New York and Wisconsin never adopted any of the model codes, using their custom-made codes instead (they now use the IBC). The Council of American Building Officials created a common code format that was used as a template by the International Code Council (ICC). This helped unify the structure so that chapters were consistent among model codes, making it easier for those designers and contractors using more than one of the codes. In 1994, the ICC was formed by the three regional model code groups in an attempt to create a family of S4 Special Supplement PCI Journal

5 model codes (such as building code, electrical code, plumbing code, and zoning code), given the name of International Codes, that would be nationally applicable and create consistency across the country. The group initially was headquartered in Falls Church, Va., but moved to Washington, D.C. However, most of the ICC s workers remain in the three locations from which the regional model codes were issued. The first edition of the IBC was published in Today, the IBC is widely accepted and has been adopted by every state and the District of Columbia but not Puerto Rico, which uses the 1997 UBC; the Virgin Islands, which uses the 1994 UBC; and Hawaii, which uses the 1994 or 1997 UBC (excluding the city and county of Honolulu, which adopted the 2003 IBC). Some big cities have not adopted the IBC yet. Chicago still uses a BOCA-based code. In 2007, New York, N.Y., adopted the 2003 IBC and allowed use of either the old or the new code until July 2008, but now it is using the 2003 IBC. Annual supplements were issued between the first two editions of the IBC. The 2003 IBC, however, was followed by one supplement in 2004 and then the 2006 IBC. The 2006 IBC had a 2007 supplement, and most recently the 2009 IBC was published. Current ICC plans are that there will be no supplement to the 2009 IBC, only a new edition every three years. Seismic design provisions in today s codes The initial draft of the 2000 IBC was developed by adapting various portions of each of the existing regional model codes, now called the legacy model codes. Fire-related provisions were typically the least stringent of the provisions in the three codes, while the structural provisions were typically the most stringent. The seismic design provisions were the sole exception. These were not based on the provisions in any of the legacy codes. The seismic design provisions of the UBC used to be based on the Recommended Lateral Force Requirements (commonly known as the blue book) issued by the Structural Engineers Association of California. 6 The UBC provisions were then adopted into American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard A58.1, the predecessor document to American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 7, and were used by both the BOCA and the Standard Building Codes. This situation began to change when, following the San Fernando earthquake of 1971, the federal government funded an effort aimed at developing a nationally ap- plicable set of seismic design provisions. This effort culminated in the 1978 publication of Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings (Applied Technology Council [ATC] 3). 7 The seismic design provisions of this document varied in significant ways from those of the UBC, so trial designs were done under federal funding to learn how the new provisions would work and what their economic impact would be. The trial designs indicated the need for certain changes in the ATC 3 document. The changes were made, and in 1985 the modified document became the first edition of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings. 8 A new edition of this document was issued every three years until 2003, but a new edition was not produced in The most recent edition, titled Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, was released in There are four NEHRP agencies of the federal government: the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was the lead organization until recently the National Science Foundation the National Institute of Science and Technology, which is now the lead agency and the U.S. Geological Survey In creating the seismic design provisions of the 2000 IBC, the 1997 NEHRP provisions were used as the basis. The 2003 IBC adopted the seismic design provisions of ASCE 7-02 by reference, which in turn were based on the 2000 NEHRP provisions. The 2006 IBC has adopted the seismic design provisions of ASCE 7-05, which are based on the 2003 NEHRP provisions, by reference. Even before the first edition of the one unifying model code the IBC could be published, the unifying effort almost unraveled when the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) decided to develop a competing model building code, NFPA The first edition of this code, dated 2003, came out in A second edition, dated 2006, has also been published. It generally has not been accepted by code officials, with only Pasadena, Tex., adopting it, though Phoenix, Ariz., nearly adopted it as well. California had initially decided to make NFPA 5000 the basis of the California Building Code (CBC). However, when Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor of California, this decision was overturned and the 2006 IBC became the basis of the 2007 CBC. 11 PCI Journal Special Supplement S5

6 Standards A model code typically adopts a number of standards issued by various standard-development organizations (SDOs). This is because a model-code organization such as the ICC does not have the resources to develop provisions regulating, for instance, the design and construction of concrete structures. The IBC refers to the ASCE 7 standard Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures 12 for all design loads, such as dead, live, and wind loads, as well as for seismic design provisions. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) develops and maintains the standard Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI ) and Commentary (ACI 318R-08) 13 for plain, reinforced, and prestressed concrete (structural concrete) design and construction. The IBC adopts it by reference and makes only a handful of modifications. The IBC simply refers to a number of standards but does not incorporate them directly. A standard by itself has no legal standing of its own. It acquires legal authority within a jurisdiction such as a city, a county, or a state through a two-step adoption process: 1. adoption of the standard into a model code 2. adoption of that model code by the jurisdiction Precast concrete standards Precast concrete has become more important in construction because so many more buildings are now being built with it. This is particularly true of seismic applications because recent earthquakes have shown the problems that steel has. In addition, the volatile nature of steel pricing in recent years has pushed more designers to consider precast concrete alternatives. Unusual or custom shapes also push up the cost of steel designs, creating more opportunities for precast concrete. Precast concrete is included in the scope of ACI 318. Thus the standard referenced by the IBC for precast concrete is also ACI 318. As mentioned previously, the IBC references ASCE 7 for all design loads, including seismic design requirements, and ACI 318 for concrete design and construction. These documents are not reproduced in the IBC. As a result, a designer needs to refer to ASCE 7 to know what the seismic design provisions for precast concrete structures are, in addition to the provisions in ACI 318. The IBC similarly refers to other materials standards for masonry, steel, and wood design and construction. Owning these additional standards becomes expensive. A member of all relevant SDOs can buy a copy of the IBC and a basic set of standards for about $1100. The cost for nonmembers is $1500 to $1600. The 2009 IBC still references ASCE 7-05, which has since been updated in (Some standards typically change between releases of the IBC; others do not). The concrete standard referenced in the 2009 IBC, however, is ACI The code situation has improved in that there is now basically only one model code that is referenced by jurisdictions around the country. However, the use of standards that are adopted by reference rather than incorporated into the code directly has complicated the system and made it difficult to stay up to date. This is especially true because standards reference other standards. For instance, ACI references many ASTM standards because ACI does not have the resources to develop standards regulating the testing of materials. Affecting standard creation The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredits the groups that write the standards that ultimately are referenced in the model code. (The NEHRP Provisions document is not a standard but a resource on which the seismic design provisions of ASCE 7 are based.) To influence the standards upon which the code relies requires influencing the IBC s referencing of standards, the standard-writing body itself, and the resource documents from which the standards sometimes derive their material. The best impact can be achieved by influencing the resource documents from which the standards derive their text. For instance, PCI s PRESSS (Precast Seismic Structural Systems) program formed the basis of additions to the IBC s seismic provisions because its rigorous testing was brought to the attention of the relevant committees updating the NEHRP provisions and was coordinated with that effort so that it became part of the NEHRP resource document. This was accomplished by working with the Provisions Update Committee (PUC) and Technical Subcommittee 4 on concrete of the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), a council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, which issues the NEHRP provisions. In the future, the impact on the seismic design provisions of the codes will come partly from the output of the BSSC. PCI is a member of the BSSC and votes on changes proposed by the PUC, giving it a chance to support or reject what is produced but not to have much S6 Special Supplement PCI Journal

7 input into what those changes are in the first place. There are some 50 members of the BSSC in all. Concrete has six representatives, and masonry has three. They are not always unified in how they view provisions, and some representatives sometimes do not vote at all for various reasons. The PUC members are drawn from the various technical subcommittees, and a few additional at-large members are appointed by the BSSC board. Changes to ASCE 7 are produced by the full committee and subcommittees that have jurisdiction over areas such as loads, wind, seismic provisions, and design-load combinations. All of the work is done in subcommittees, which hold the key to getting any new ideas included in changes to ASCE 7. The full committee votes on proposals suggested by each subcommittee. The seismic subcommittee is the most critical for precast concrete at this time. One key problem endemic in the system stems from the requirement that a negative vote on a proposal must be accompanied by a reason for the vote, and an indication as to what modification(s) would be required to change the vote to affirmative. It is obviously much easier to vote yes than to vote no, so irrespective of the merit of a proposal many members tend to vote yes or abstain. Once a proposal passes by the required majority of votes, all that is left to be done is to resolve the negative comments. If everything else fails, a negative can be resolved by finding the negative voter nonpersuasive by a majority vote of the committee. Ballot proposals are mostly put together by the various subcommittees, covering their areas of interest. Those preparing such proposals and, in particular, subcommittee chairs, obviously have a lot of influence. The 2010 edition of ASCE 7 is now complete. Because of recent changes made by the ICC in the procedure by which changes are made to the IBC, the ASCE 7-10 update process had to be expedited. The subcommittees are more open than they have been in the past to suggestions from members, based on expertise. ACI Committee 318 members are appointed based on criteria that have never been formalized or published. Appointment is based on past participation in ACI and other factors. The chair is appointed by ACI s Technical Activities Committee (TAC). The chair has broad power in appointing the members of the committee, who then work through subcommittees on individual chapters of the standard. Each member of the committee sits on two subcommittees, and additional people also participate on the subcommittees. While the selection is not open, the work is largely an open process because all meetings are open. PCI s technical director has traditionally had a seat on the committee, as do technical directors or their equivalents from other industry associations. Contributions to ACI s technical activities are the key to being asked to join the committee for other people, but the criteria for selection are fluid and unknown. In addition, being a member of the committee is one thing; having influence and respect from committee members such that a member s ideas or suggestions are given importance is something else. Persuasive comments in the course of committee discussions and in response to ballots are among the ways to influence members. During discussions and voting, all are not equal. One vote that is well reasoned can change the outcome if it presents the change in a way that persuades others who are otherwise not disposed to the change. The ability to persuade others depends on the importance of the change and the person s past work, reasoning capability, and factual basis. The amount of work that a member has done with the committee and the committee s perspective of his or her contributions form the basis for the influence that each member has. The good side to this mode of functioning is that someone who is not competent or does not put in adequate effort will not have an influence on the committee s work, even if the person holds an official position that should provide him or her with significant clout. Code development process The IBC for all practical purposes the only model code that is now being adopted by jurisdictions around the country uses a very open process to incorporate changes. Anyone can propose a change using a form that is available at the ICC s website ( These changes then undergo scrutiny by the relevant IBC committees, one of which is the IBC Structural Committee. Submitted changes are published by ICC so everyone can review them. A code development hearing (CDH) is then held to hear both the proponents and the opponents of each change argue their cases in favor of or against the change. PCI Journal Special Supplement S7

8 The structural committee used to consist only of building officials from the former areas of influence of each of the three legacy model codes. Today, it also includes a structural engineer from each of those areas and selected industry representatives. In all, it consists of 13 to 15 members and the chair. When a change comes up for consideration at a hearing, a proponent has two minutes to speak in favor of the change. Other supporters and opponents are also given the same amount of time. The total number of speakers is not restricted. The proponent then has one minute to rebut the opposing testimony. Other supporters and opponents are accorded the same privilege as well. Further rebuttals are also allowed, after which hearing on the particular item is closed. The committee then asks questions, if they have any, and makes a motion to approve, disapprove, or approve as modified. Approval as modified is the most common resolution. The ICC recently decided to remove approval as modified as an option but has since reinstated the option. At the conclusion of the committee s action on a code-change proposal and before the next code-change proposal is called to the floor, the moderator asks for a motion from the public-hearing attendees who may object to the committee s action. If no motion is brought forward on the committee s action, the results of the public hearing are established by the committee s action. If a motion is brought forward and is sustained by a two-thirds majority of votes cast by eligible voters, both the committee s action and the assembly action are reported as the results of the public hearing. Decisions from the hearing are published and can be accessed online. Committee recommendations are subject to public comment. This process creates an open system, with parties interested in a particular proposal being able to challenge the relevant IBC committee s recommendation concerning the proposal via public comment. Attendees may also propose to modify or further modify a proposal recommended for approval, disapproval, or approval as modified during the public-comment stage. The public comments are published and constitute the agenda for the final action hearing (FAH) of the IBC. At the FAH, only the jurisdictional members of the ICC are allowed to vote. At the FAH on structural changes, the structural committee s members have no special status different from that of the submitters of public comments. However, the committee s recommendation on a particular change proposal becomes the standing motion on that proposal unless there has been successful assembly action, in which case the assembly action becomes the standing proposal. It requires a two-thirds majority of eligible voters present and voting to overturn a standing motion. If a hand count tends to raise doubts as to whether there is a clear two-thirds majority in favor of overturning a particular standing motion, votes are counted electronically. This wide-open process can be abused, however, by packing the hearing room with known supporters or opponents of a particular public comment, who are eligible to vote. PCI attends CDHs and FAHs as a lobbying group, with no more clout to have its voice heard than any other group that attends. During the discussion, certain people are occasionally asked for their opinions, which count for more than others due to their expertise. In particular, members of the Code Resource Support Committee (CRSC), which is appointed and sponsored by FEMA, has great influence, and the opinions of its members often end up influencing the final decisions. As a result, it is important to try to influence the members of the CRSC if your proposal is going to affect the model code. The IBC Structural Committee discourages modifications to referenced standards. Proponents of such modifications are advised instead to work through the standard-writing bodies. This approach has created a certain degree of frustration among participants. Particularly when it comes to seismic provisions, a few key individuals hold leadership positions in all of the important forums that have been mentioned: CRSC, the Seismic Subcommittee of ASCE 7, and the PUC of the NEHRP Provisions. Their opinions have a major impact on the outcome of a change proposal, be it to the NEHRP Provisions or to the seismic provisions of ASCE 7 or the IBC. These individuals do not, as a general rule, favor or disfavor precast concrete. They are experienced and highly knowledgeable, but they, like anyone else, sometimes have biases that may be difficult to overcome. If one is knowledgeable, credible, prepared to do the needed homework, and persuasive in oral and written communication, he or she can have influence in these committees and with the key individuals. Such a person can make a difference, but it is significantly more difficult than it was 10 years ago. Influencing local codes To have an impact on the code that is used in a particular jurisdiction, rather than at the national level, the first task is to find out about the state or local government agency responsible for building regulations and the process that is followed in adopting and modifying the local code. Once the decision-making body is identified and the process understood, support for a precast concrete friendly amendment must be gathered from other inter- S8 Special Supplement PCI Journal

9 est groups and the decision-making body lobbied. There is obviously no prescribed method for accomplishing these tasks, and success may be attainable or elusive, depending on a complex combination of circumstances. One key problem is that there are thousands of local jurisdictions around the country and it is very difficult and expensive to have an impact on even a fraction of them. Chicago, for instance, has a large number of suburbs, and many have their own building codes. All of them are based on one edition or another of the IBC, but amendments to each code must be pursued separately. The building code of the city of Chicago itself has historically proved to be remarkably resistant to change. California, alternatively, is quite open to technical changes to its code, with most changes typically proposed by state agencies. Codes do influence product choices by designers because they may favor certain design approaches or materials because of the ways that they are written or simply by requiring certain specific attributes that some products have and others do not. Precast concrete has made great progress in terms of having its concepts accepted into the codes, but it is a long and difficult process to make additional gains at this time. Any proposed change must be solidly justified and promoted very hard to make it in, but opportunities do exist. It can be an uphill fight, however, because lobbies that are better funded and more entrenched are fighting for their own input, which favors their materials possibly at the expense of precast concrete. Precast concrete has few true allies in the code arena, with alliances often depending on the issue at hand. The Alliance for Concrete Codes and Standards, with membership drawn from concrete-related professional and trade associations, and organizations such as the Portland Cement Association are natural allies on most, if not all, issues. To some extent, recent concrete-industry efforts have been focused on maintaining the status quo and not losing ground. This requires fighting key battles as they arise. A prime example has been the adoption of sprinklers at the expense of compartmentalized construction. Changing this approach will not be easy because industry code budgets have been reduced and it has become more difficult to make concerted efforts on a major topic. How to get involved To be active on the national level requires being involved in multiple forums simultaneously. They are intertwined, and significant participation is necessary to have an impact. In the seismic area, for instance, it is important to be involved on a continuing basis in multiple committees. There has to be a continuing, active presence over a long period of time to have a chance to be influential. The involved person earns the respect of those who are influential by doing a lot of hard work that is eventually noticed by committee members. He or she has to have a reputation for integrity and must not be viewed as blindly promoting the industry perspective. Shortcuts cannot be taken, and focus cannot be on the short term. The industry representative virtually has to look to the next generation of buildings that he or she can influence. The impact will not be felt next year, but it also doesn t have to wait a hundred years. It is a game of persistence. Code-change proposals may not be incorporated initially; a revised idea may have to be proposed in three years and then possibly again three years later. Code-change proposals ultimately have a chance for acceptance if the proposer's reputation for integrity is secure and his or her technical expertise is solid. This reputation is earned by participating in an ongoing fashion in the various code- and standard-development committees. PCI s member companies have a difficult time gaining this influence because of turnover in key positions. The best way to gain influence is to work with a long-term, dedicated association staff member who uses his or her office to provide input and maintain a consistent presence. The best approach is for the association to groom a particular person to participate in these committees and this work to gain continuity and to work with outside, credible experts with influence that exceeds his or her own. Both expertise and influence are required to achieve results. Times are difficult. However, if precast concrete industry professionals do not participate, other industries will and the precast concrete industry may lose ground. Maintaining the gains that the precast concrete industry has made is the most important goal of the current work PCI is supporting. Most important, the precast concrete industry must provide input whenever it is requested. PCI Journal Special Supplement S9

10 This can be difficult, tedious work. It requires close coordination and communication with everyone in the association who is affected and can contribute, as well as other interested parties. It is important to coordinate efforts in advance of committee meetings and to debrief afterwards to see what progress was made and what steps need to be taken. Industry professionals must pay attention to all changes made in the codes and standards that might have an impact on precast concrete, and they must stay updated on these types of publications. Precast concrete industy professionals should get involved early in the process and make it a priority to respond quickly. There can be a long lag between our input and any results, but results ultimately do come from the input provided. Considering the state of the economy, it is more important than ever before for us to be vigilant and defend the progress that has been made. It is more difficult to change things back than to keep them from being changed in the first place. PCI members have made progress on making structural changes because ideas that have been well tested and well defended were presented by individuals with expertise and influence. This work must be continued. The steel industry has always been aggressive and will continue to be that way, to concrete s detriment. The masonry industry is usually our ally, but not necessarily always. Steel and wood almost always develop building solutions that compete against concrete construction. However, alliances vary based on the topic and its impact on the building code overall. Despite all odds, precast concrete has had increasing recognition in codes as more jurisdictions and state organizations become aware of its benefits and more designers use it in ways that make its advantages more apparent. What is needed at PCI is a Technical Activities Council task force to coordinate its code efforts and communicate with members about all that is going on. It is important for anyone who is interested in having an impact to stay connected to the progress being made and to get involved. There is always a danger of losing ground in the future if we do not support current efforts and continue to move forward. References 1. American Insurance Association, National Board of Fire Underwriters National Building Code. New York, NY. 2. International Code Council (ICC) International Building Code. Falls Church, VA: ICC. 3. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code. Whittier, CA: ICBO. 4. Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) National Building Code. Country Club Hills, IL: BOCA. 5. Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) Standard Building Code. Birmingham, AL: SBCCI. 6. Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Recommended Lateral Force Requirements. Sacramento, CA: SEAOC. 7. Applied Technology Council (ATC) Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 8. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings. Washington, DC: Building Seismic Safety Council. 9. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. Washington, DC: Building Seismic Safety Council. 10. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Building Construction and Safety Code. NFPA Quincy, MA: NFPA. 11. California Building Standards Commission California Building Code (CBC). Sacramento, CA: ICC. 12. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. SEI/ASCE Reston, VA: ASCE. 13. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI ) and Commentary (ACI 318R-08). Farmington Hills, MI: ACI. S10 Special Supplement PCI Journal

11 About the author Synopsis S. K. Ghosh is president of S. K. Ghosh Associates Inc. in Palatine, Ill. Keywords Building code, code, committee, construction, influence, model code, standard. Reader comments Please address any reader comments to PCI Journal editor-in-chief Emily Lorenz at or Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI Journal, 200 W. Adams St., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL J This white paper discusses the recent history of building codes, their current status, what lies ahead, and how professionals in the building-materials industry can influence the standards as they evolve. PCI Journal Special Supplement S11

12 200 West Adams Street Suite 2100 Chicago, IL Phone: Fax: S12 Special Supplement PCI Journal