The International Building Codes

The International Building Codes
Wanda Edwards, PE
RCI, Inc.
1500 Sunday Drive, Ste. 204, Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: 919-859-0742 • Fax: 919-859-1328 • E-mail: wedwards@rci-online.org
2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3 E d w a r d s • 7 9
Abstract
This seminar will focus on the International Code, code submittal procedures and
deadlines, and the code development process. Significant changes in the 2012 International
Building Code affecting the building envelope will be reviewed. With final action hearings
complete for the 2015 edition of the International Building Code, this seminar will highlight
significant changes that will appear in the 2015 IBC. Code proposals that were denied
during the last code cycle but are likely to be resubmitted in the next code cycle will be
discussed.
Speaker
Wanda Edwards, PE — RCI, Inc. – Raleigh, NC
Wanda Edwa rds joined RCI in July, after having served as director of code development
for the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. Previously, Ms. Edwards
served as deputy commissioner for the Engineering Division of the North Carolina
Department of Insurance. In 2004, she was a Fulbright Scholar to University of the West
Indies, Trinidad and Tobago, where she developed a training and certification program for
building inspectors in the country. She has owned a residential construction, design, and
development company; performed structural defect inspections for a national home warranty
corporation; and taught community college courses on construction and building codes.
Edwards earned bachelor’s degrees in civil engineering and architecture from North
Carolina State University. She is a licensed professional engineer; a member of ASTM D08,
E06, and E60 committees; and serves on the ICC structural committee.
8 0 • E d w a r d s 2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3
INTRODUCTION
Building codes have a long history,
dating back to around 2000 BC with the
Code of Hammurabi. Loosely translated, if
someone builds a house for another person,
the builder must be paid; if the house falls
down and kills the occupant, the builder
must be killed; if a wall falls down, the
builder must fix it at his own expense.
The Code of Hammurabi represents the
beginnings of requiring safety in the built
environment.
In more recent times, codes began to
be developed early in the 20th century.
One such code—known as the “National
Building Code”—was developed by the Fire
Underwriters Association around 1905.
Later, three code organizations emerged in
the United States. These three code organizations
were developed regionally, with
Building Officials and Code Administrators
International, Inc. (BOCA) codes being
used mainly in the Northeast, International
Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)
codes used predominantly in the West,
and Southern Building Code Congress
International (SBCCI) codes used throughout
the Southeast.
HISTORY OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CODE COUNCIL
With time, the need for a national,
uniform set of codes emerged. So, in 1994,
the three code organizations began the consolidation
process to form the International
Codes Council (ICC), with the first edition
of the International Codes published in
2000. As stated in the 2012 International
Building Code, “The purpose of [the] code
is to establish the minimum requirements
to safeguard the public health, safety, and
general welfare through structural strength,
means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation,
adequate light and ventilation, energy
conservation, and safety to life and property
from fire and other hazards attributed to the
built environment and to provide safety to
firefighters and emergency responders during
emergency operations.” Codes provide
one set of requirements that allow designers
and contractors the ability to standardize
designs and construction, and manufacturers
to utilize economies of scale, rather than
products produced to meet regional codes;
this ultimately saves the consumer money.
With code development at the national level,
the organization may draw upon the collective
knowledge of the country and the many
experts who participate in the process. The
International Codes are consensus documents,
are the most commonly adopted
building code in the country, and have been
widely adopted by jurisdictions throughout
the U.S., as well as internationally.
PUBLICATIONS
ICC develops and publishes a comprehensive
set of codes used to construct and
maintain the built environment. The codes
include:
• International Building Code
• International Energy Conservation
Code
• International Existing Building Code
• International Fire Code
• International Fuel Gas Code
• International Green Construction
Code
• International Mechanical Code
• ICC Performance Code
• International Plumbing Code
• International Private Sewage
Disposal Code
• International Property Maintenance
Code
• International Residential Code
• International Swimming Pool and
Spa Code
• International Wildland Urban
Interface Code
• International Zoning Code
The International Codes are published
every three years, with the current edition
being the 2012 edition. Work is under
way for the creation and publication of
the 2015 edition. Adoption of codes at the
state and local level can lag years behind
the publication of the International Codes
while jurisdictions review, amend, and
adopt the codes. For example, the State of
Connecticut’s code is based upon the 2003
International Codes; Georgia’s code, the
2006 International Codes; Florida’s code,
the 2009 Codes; and Maryland, the 2012
Codes. Many states do not adopt a statewide
code, and it is left up to local government
to adopt and enforce a building code.
National Fire Protection Association
The National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) is another major code organization,
which was founded in the United States
in 1896. NFPA creates many fire and electrical
standards—most notably NFPA 13,
NFPA 101, and NFPA 70. NFPA 13 is the
Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler
Systems, NFPA 101 is the Life Safety Code,
and NFPA 70 is the Electrical Code, all
widely used throughout the U.S. In 2003,
NFPA released NFPA 5000, a building code
entitled Building and Construction Safety
Code. Similar to the IBC in scope and content,
this code has been adopted by only a
few jurisdictions.
INTERNATIONAL CODE
DEVELOPMENT
Due to recent changes in the code development
process, code change proposals
may be submitted every three years (previously
every 18 months). The codes have
been divided into three tracks, with each
track being developed in successive years.
The tracks are as shown in Table 1.
Some codes have portions heard during
other tracks; for example, the structural provisions
of the International Existing Building
Code are heard by the structural committee
that meets during Track A hearings. Further
information about hearings and deadlines
can be found at ICC’s webpage at www.iccsafe.
org/ and in Appendix A.
Anyone may submit proposed changes
The International Building Codes
2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3 E d w a r d s • 8 1
8 2 • E d w a r d s 2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3
to codes on the form included in Appendix
B. The deadlines for proposals are shown on
the schedule in Appendix A. Code proposals
are more successful if submitted by a group
rather than by an individual, as it demonstrates
consensus amongst the group. RCI
members are encouraged to submit proposals
or suggestions for code changes to the
author for consideration as submittals by
RCI, Inc.
As shown in the diagram, code proposals
are received and published and
code development hearings are held at
which testimony is heard by committees of
experts. The committees vote on each proposal
to approve, disapprove, or approve as
modified. The committees are composed of
various groups of stakeholders. The membership
categories are General, who are
consumers and regulators; Producers, who
are contractors, manufacturers, materials
associations, and standards development
organizations; and Users, who are designers,
owners, and product certifiers. At least
one-third of each of committee’s members
are regulators. Anyone may apply for
membership, with appointments made by
the ICC Board of Directors. Following the
hearings, the results are posted and public
comments are received and published. The
last step in the process is the final action
hearing, where the governmental-voting
membership of ICC makes the final decisions
about code proposals. Both the code
development hearings and the final action
hearings are webcast live through ICC’s
webpage, allowing individuals to view and
listen to the testimony remotely.
RCI staff will attend the hearings and
provide testimony. Plans will be developed
to keep members informed of proposals
and to solicit feedback about the proposals
to develop RCI’s position and deliver testimony
at the hearings. RCI testimony will be
valuable to members of ICC, as members
represent a nonbiased, professional assessment
without an economic interest in the
outcome of the proposals.
For a number of years, the ICC has
been considering ways for individuals to
participate in the code process without the
expense of travel and time away from the
office. Currently, ICC plans to develop and
launch the Code Development Governmental
Consensus Process (cdp ACCESS) by the
beginning of the 2015 code development
cycle, which will lead to publication of the
2018 edition of the I-codes.
The goal of cdp ACCESS is to allow a
flexible voting window to increase participation
of members and stakeholders and to
give participants time to review testimony,
to formulate opinions on proposals, to
become informed voters, and to have the
ability to vote at the Final Action Hearings
or to remotely vote, with the last recorded
vote being a participant’s final recorded
vote. Voters will be given two weeks to cast
a final vote after the conclusion of the Final
Action Hearings. While initial reactions are
positive, concerns about security, transparency,
and fraud must be addressed.
MAJOR CODE CHANGES
AFFECTING THE BUILDING
ENVELOPE IN THE 2012 IBC
The following discussions about the codes
are restricted to changes
affecting the building envelope
and are not a full summary
of the code changes
in the 2012 IBC.
Vertical Continuity
Section 706.6, Vertical Continuity,
states that firewalls shall extend from the
foundation to a termination point at least 30
in. above both adjacent roofs. An exception
has been added that buildings with a sloped
roof shall meet the requirements of Section
706.6.2. That section states, “Where a firewall
serves as an interior wall for a building,
and the roof on one side or both sides of the
firewall slopes toward the firewall at a slope
greater than two units vertical in 12 units
horizontal (2:12), the firewall shall extend
to a height equal to the height of the roof
located 4 feet (1219 mm) from the fire wall
plus 30 inches (762 mm). In no case shall
the extension of the fire wall be less than 30
inches (762 mm).”
Firewalls are required to extend above
the roof surface to minimize the spread of a
fire to the roof. For sloped roofs, it is necessary
to extend the parapet more than 30
in. to reduce the spread of fire on the roof.
This exception applies to roofs with slopes
greater than 2:12. Table 2 shows roof slopes
and corresponding parapet heights required
by the new provision.
As can be seen from the table, each unit
increase in slope requires a minimum 4-in.
increase in parapet wall height.
Attic Spaces
Section 1203.2, titled Attic Spaces, has
been amended to allow the reduction of
ventilation area to 1/300, provided 50% and
not more than 80% is provided by ventila-
Track A – 2012/2015 Track B – 2013 Track C – 2014
International Building Code International Residential Code International Green Construction Code
International Mechanical Code International Energy Conservation Code
International Plumbing Code International Existing Building Code
International Fuel Gas Code International Fire Code
International Private Sewage International Performance Code
Disposal Code
International Property Maintenance Code
International Wildland-Urban Interface Code
International Zoning Code
International Swimming Pool and Spa Code
Table 1 – International Code tracks.
Roof slope (adjacent to parapet) 3:12 4:12 6:12
Parapet height required 42 in. 46 in. 54 in.
Table 2 – Parapet height requirements.
2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3 E d w a r d s • 8 3
tors that are located in the upper portion
of the attic. An exception has been added
to allow the reduction of ventilation area to
1/300 when a Class-I or Class-II vapor barrier
is installed on the warm-in-winter side
of the ceiling, which will reduce the movement
of moisture into the attic space and
allow the reduction of ventilation required.
The code also allows the deletion of ventilation
if the building official determines it is
not necessary due to atmospheric or climatic
conditions.
These changes were added to the code
to clarify what the required ventilation rate
is, to provide guidance when there is not 3
ft. of vertical rise in the attic space, and to
limit the amount of ventilation that can be
provided in the upper portion of the attic
when the ventilation area is being reduced.
Polypropylene Siding
Code sections 1404.12 and 1404.18
have been added to deal with polypropylene
siding. Most significantly, fire spread index
requirements and fire separation distances
have been specified. The use of the siding
is also limited by wind speed and exposure
category, must be 10 ft. from another building
when this siding is used, and must be
certified and labeled in accordance with
ASTM D7254, Standard Specification for
Polypropylene Siding.
Anchored Masonry Veneer
Section 1405.6, Anchored Masonry
Veneer, has been revised to delete the
requirement that anchored masonry veneer
conform to the requirements of Section
6.2.2.10.3.3 of TMS 402/ACI 530/ASCE 5.
Shake table testing performed on anchored
masonry veneers shows that the anchored
masonry veneer walls, subjected to a maximum
considered earthquake (MCE) corresponding
to Seismic Design Category D,
performed no better with wire reinforcement
than without wire reinforcement. The deletion
of the wire reinforcement requirement
will aid in reducing corrosion in the veneer.
Roof Drainage Systems
Roof drainage systems are covered in
Section 1503.4 of the IBC. This section
has been revised to provide clarity that the
design and installation of roof drainage systems
are to be done in accordance with the
International Plumbing Code, Sections 1106
and 1108.
Roof Underlayment
Roof Covering Underlayment in High
Wind Areas, Section 1507.2.8.1, has been
revised to include more stringent requirements
for underlayment attachment in
areas where the nominal wind speed (Vasd)
is 120 mph or greater. Changes include
the use of ASTM D226 Type II, ASTM
D4869 Type IV, or ASTM D6757 underlayment;
overlap requirements; cap nail shank
gauge and penetration requirements; and
an exception to the requirements for underlayments
complying with ASTM D1970.
Rooftop Gardens
The requirements for rooftop gardens
and landscaped roofs have been revised in
Section 1507.6 to require that the installations
comply with the Fire Code where
there are several restrictions about rooftop
gardens and landscaped roofs. Section
1507.16.1 states, “The structural frame
and roof construction supporting the load
imposed upon the roof by the roof gardens
or landscaped roofs shall comply with the
requirements of Table 601, Fire Resistance
Requirements for Building Elements.”
PV Systems
Definitions, material standards, attachment,
fire classification, and wind resistance
requirements for photovoltaic (PV) systems
and PV modules have been added to chapter
15. PV systems that are attached or adhered
to the roof, including shingles, are required
to be labeled with their fire classification. PV
modules/shingles must be listed and labeled
in accordance with UL 1703, must be tested
in accordance with ASTM D3161, must
comply with the appropriate design wind
speed required by the code, and the packaging
must be labeled. Rooftop PV systems
shall have the same fire classification as is
required for the roof assembly. PV panels
and modules shall be in accordance with the
International Fire Code.
Rooftop Structures
Section 1509, Rooftop Structures, has
been reorganized and amended to provide
more clarity about requirements for rooftop
structures. A new section has been added
to the chapter for mechanical equipment
that is not covered by a roof and separates
penthouse requirements in its own section.
Another new section has been added to
require a maximum flame spread rating of
25 for combustible materials used to construct
screens and must be tested in accordance
with NFPA 285.
Ice Barrier Membranes
There are certain instances when the
code requires that the existing roof covering
be removed down to the deck before a
new covering is installed. An exception was
added to Section 1510.3 to allow ice barrier
membranes (e.g., self-adhering modified
bitumen) to remain in place when removing
existing layers of roof coverings, and a new
ice barrier membrane may be installed over
the existing ice barrier.
ASCE 7
In 2012, the IBC transitioned to the
2010 edition of ASCE 7. Some of the significant
changes to the standard include:
• R emoval of the occupancy factor for
wind
• R einstating the use of Exposure D
• R evised load factors for wind allowable
stress design (ASD) and load
and resistance factor design (LFRD)
load combinations
RCI has posted online a technical advisory
that provides more information about
the changes to ASCE 7.
Masonry Structures
Chapter 21, Masonry Structures, has
been revised to require masonry designed
by the direct method to be done in accordance
with the new TMS 403-10, to provide
simpler design solutions for structures.
Water-Resistive Barriers
The code provisions for water-resistive
barriers for stucco applications, Section
2510.6, have been revised to provide guidance
on how the water-resistive barriers
are to be installed. Either a two-ply or a
two-layer system can be used. With the
two-ply system, both layers are installed
and lapped, with the exterior layer being
integrated into the flashing. With the twolayer
system, each layer is installed in a
ship-lapped fashion, and the interior layer
is integrated into the flashing.
Susceptible Bays
A definition for susceptible bay has
been added to Section 202, Definitions. A
susceptible bay is defined as a roof or portion
of a roof where the slope is less than
¼ in. per ft.; or where water is impounded
in whole or in part, the primary drain sys8
4 • E d w a r d s 2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3
tem is blocked, and the secondary system
is functional. Sections 1608.3 and 1611.2
require that susceptible bays be evaluated
in accordance with ASCE 7.
Skylights
Dome-shaped skylight requirements
have been changed in Section 2610.3 to
allow the slope of the skylight to be determined
using the width of the skylight
instead of the span, with a minimum of 3
in. of slope being provided to assure that
the skylights will shed any embers and not
ignite.
SIGNIFICANT CODE PROPOSALS
AFFECTING BUILDING ENVELOPE
APPROVED FOR THE 2015 IBC
The following discussions about the
codes are restricted to proposals affecting
the building envelope, and are not a full summary
of the code changes in the 2015 IBC.
Vegetative Roofs
The National Roofing Contractors Association
(NRCA) submitted a proposal to
include a definition of vegetative roofs in the
code. The code proposal was approved and
will define vegetative roofs as “an assembly
of interacting components designed to
waterproof and normally insulate a building’s
top surface that includes, by design,
vegetation and related landscape elements.”
Roof Replacement and Drainage
NRCA also submitted a proposal to
allow exemption from the secondary drain
and scupper requirements of the code when
recovering or replacing an existing roof, if
positive drainage is provided. A public comment
was submitted and approved to alter
the proposal as follows:
Recovering or replacing an existing
roof covering shall not be required to
meet the requirement for secondary
(emergency overflow) drains or scuppers
in Section 1503.4 for roofs that
provide for positive roof drainage.
For the purposes of this exception,
existing secondary drainage or scupper
systems required in accordance
with this code shall not be removed
unless they are replaced by secondary
drains or scuppers designed and
installed in accordance with Section
1503.4.
The intent of the original proposal was
to avoid requiring the installation of secondary
drains and scuppers when reroofing or
replacing an existing roof. However, with
the language as submitted in the original
proposal, it would allow the removal of
existing secondary drains. The public comment
was approved, making it clear that
secondary drainage systems could not be
removed with reroofing or replacing an
existing roof, unless a code-compliant system
was installed.
Roof Re-cover vs. Roof Replacement
The Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers
Association submitted a proposal to modify
the roof re-cover vs. roof replacement section
of the code (1510.3). The new proposal
clarifies that a roof replacement requires
removal of all existing layers down to the
deck. The proposal also specifies when a
new roof cover may be installed over an
existing roof covering (re-cover). A re-cover
is permitted when (1) the new roof cover
is installed per manufacturers’ installation
instructions; (2) a new roof system transmits
loads to the building’s structure and
does not rely on the existing roof system or
covering for support; (3) metal panel, metal
shingle, or concrete and clay tile roof coverings
are installed over existing wood shake
roofs; and (4) a new protective coating is
applied over an SPF system. A roof re-cover
is not permitted (1) when existing roof and/
or cover are water soaked or deteriorated;
(2) where the existing roof covering is slate,
clay, cement, or asbestos-cement tile; and
(3) where the roof has two or more applications
of any kind.
PV Loads
The National Council of Structural
Engineers Association submitted an extensive
code proposal specifying the loads for
PV panels/modules. The code provision
specifies a 20-psf uniform live load, and
unless each photovoltaic (PV) panel/module
is clearly and permanently marked, “Do
not walk on this surface – not intended for
maintenance access or pedestrian traffic,”
and appropriate maintenance access paths
are provided, a nonconcurrent 300-pound
concentrated load as set forth in Table
1607.1 shall also be applied. The individual
solar PV panels/modules shall be designed
to withstand the roof/PV live load, in combination
with other applicable loads. If the
panels are designed to be installed over and
supported by a roof, the supports of the
roof shall be designed to accommodate the
full dead load, the roof/PV live load, and
other applicable loads. PV panels/modules
that are independent elements and don’t
have access underneath and are restricted
to keep the public away are not required
to accommodate a roof/PV live load. If the
panels/modules are designed to be the
roof, span to structural supports, and have
accessible space underneath, then the panels
and supporting structure shall support
the roof/PV live load. Ballasted PV systems
are not required to be rigidly attached to the
roof or the supporting structure. Ballasted
nonpenetrating systems may be installed
only on roofs with slopes of 1 in. per ft. or
less. The ballasted nonpenetrating systems
shall be designed to resist sliding and uplift.
Composite Steel Floor Deck Slabs
The Steel Deck Institute’s proposal to
allow the use of SDI-C-2011, Standard for
Composite Steel Floor Deck Slabs, for design
and construction of composite slabs constructed
of steel and concrete was approved.
Gables
A revised definition of gables was
approved to define gables as “the triangular
portion of the wall beneath the end of a
dual-slope, pitched, or mono-slope roof or
portion thereof and above the top plates of
the story or level of the ceiling below.”
Water-Resistive Barriers
Previously, the code required that waterresistive
barriers installed over wood-based
sheathing must be equivalent to two layers
of Grade-D paper. The Grade-D paper
requirement has been changed to read “a
water-resistive barrier complying with ASTM
E2556, Type I.” The code also exempted
stucco with barriers that had a water
resistance equal to or greater than 60-
minute, Grade-D paper that is separated by
a drainage space or a non-water-absorbing
layer. The 60-minute, Grade-D paper has
been deleted and now requires a barrier
complying with ASTM E2556, Type II.
Ventilation
An exception to the ventilation requirements
of the IBC was added to allow the
reduction of the net-free ventilation area
to 1/300 when a Class I or Class II vapor
retarder is added to the warm-in-winter side
of the ceiling in climate zones 6, 7, and 8.
2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3 E d w a r d s • 8 5
Another exception was also added to allow
at least 40% and not more than 50% of the
required venting area is provided by ventilators
to be located in the upper portion of the
attic or rafter space. The upper ventilators
must be located no more than 3 ft. below the
ridge of the highest point of the space. The
distance is measured vertically. The remainder
of the ventilation is to be provided by
eave or cornice vents.
Roof Drainage
There were several changes to the
International Plumbing Code that affect
roof design and drainage requirements.
First, Section 1101.7, “Roof Design,” which
addresses ponding, has been changed to
add a requirement that the maximum possible
depth of water on the roof must include
the height of the water above the secondary
roof drainage means to achieve the required
flow rate of the secondary drains to accommodate
the design rainfall.
Next, Section 1105.2, on “Roof Drain
Flow Rate,” states the flow rate based on
the head of water above the roof drain shall
be used to size the storm drainage system,
and the flow rate used shall be based on
the maximum anticipated ponding at the
roof drain.
Recently, the American Society of
Plumbing Engineers Foundation completed
a research project on flow rates through
drains. Below is an excerpt from the reason
statement submitted with some code proposals
resulting from the research report:
The ASPE Research Foundation
completed a research project on
the flow rates through roof drains.
What was uncovered was the fact
that storm drainage systems have
been improperly designed since the
code requirements’ inception. The
code requirements date back to the
original National Plumbing Code recommendations
from the National
Bureau of Standards published in
1940. The current code assumes
that the water will gradually flow to
a roof drain and flow into the piping,
never to exceed the amount of flow
permitted in the drain.
What is occurring is the rainwater
flows at different rates, depending on
the pitch of the roof. The more ponding
of water at the roof drain, the
greater the quantity of flow through
the roof drain. The research discovered
that for smaller roof drains,
the roof drain often allowed a much
greater quantity of water to flow in
the drain than is permitted by pipe
sizing. The end result is the storm
drain becomes a pressurized piping
system. There are many occurrences
of pipe failures resulting from storm
drainage piping blowing apart inside
the building. This can be attributed
to improper sizing of the storm
drainage system. Either a smaller
roof drain was required, or a larger
storm drain pipe.
By changing the method of sizing,
the flow through the roof drain is
finally considered when sizing the
piping system. This is no different
than sizing a sanitary drainage
system whereby the system is sized
based on the flow rate from a given
fixture drain.
There is no need to indicate roof
areas, since the slope and shape of
the roof will impact the sizing of the
storm drainage system. An engineer
will have to evaluate the amount
of ponding around the roof drain
during a 100-year storm of onehour
duration. Once the ponding
is known, the drain can be selected
based on the flow rate of that particular
drain. The piping is then
sized based on the flow through the
roof drain.
The sizing for all of the tables was
taken from the ASPE Sizing Tables
Application. Schedule 40 PVC was
used for the pipe sizes, with the
exception of 5 inch. Cast iron was
used to develop the 5-inch numbers.
The flow rates are maximum flows
using one-third full for the stacks
and full flow for the horizontal
drains. One-third-full stacks [were] identified by the National Bureau
of Standards as a flow amount that
will assure open channel flow in the
piping system.
Gutter sizing was also taken from
the ASPE Sizing Table Application.
Based upon the report, an extensive
proposal was submitted and approved to
revise the requirements for storm drainpipe
sizing, vertical leader sizing, horizontal and
gutter sizing. New tables have been added to
the International Plumbing Code in Section
1106.
DENIED PROPOSALS AFFECTING
BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR GROUP A
Even though proposals are denied, they
are often revised, refined, negotiated with
stakeholders, and resubmitted in subsequent
code cycles. It is worthwhile to review
some of the proposals that are most likely to
reappear in the next code development cycle.
SPR I introduced a number of standards
for inclusion in the code that were unsuccessful.
First, ANSI/SPR I WD-1 is entitled
Wind Design Standard for Roof Assemblies.
This standard provides a prescriptive method
for corner and perimeter enhancement,
which is accomplished by increasing the
number of fasteners or the spacing of adhesive
ribbons, depending on the roof assembly.
The standard allows for the use of one
base assembly with increased perimeter and
corner attachment, rather than requiring
tested assemblies in each area.
The 2006 IBC contained a new provision
in Section 1504.8 that prohibited the use of
stone or gravel on roofs in hurricane-prone
regions. Further restrictions were provided
based upon mean roof height and exposure
category for areas outside of hurricaneprone
regions. This provision was submitted
in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, where it
was observed that buildings in New Orleans
had window breakage due to aggregate
blow-off from adjoining buildings.
During the following code cycles, proposals
came forward from a coalition that
included the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) and the Single Ply
Roofing Industry (SPR I) that would allow
the use of gravel in hurricane-prone regions
if parapets were utilized. The height of the
parapets was related to the wind speed.
Major opposition to the proposal has been
expressed from the National Council of
Structural Engineers Associations, and consequently,
it was denied.
RP -14, Wind Design for Vegetative Roofs,
is another standard introduced by SPR I.
This standard is very similar to the Design
Standard for Ballasted Systems (RP 4) and
also includes the requirement for special
inspections. The proposal was denied at
the Code Action Hearings, and the proposal
was withdrawn by SPR I at the Final Action
Hearings. The committee reason for disapproval
was the standard did not address
all variations of vegetative roofs, and the
8 6 • E d w a r d s 2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3
standard is not based on current wind load
requirements. ANSI/SPR I GD-1, Structural
Design Standard for Gutter Systems Use
With Low-Slope Roofs, was also introduced
and was denied for the same reasons as
RP -14.
The last proposal submitted by SPR I
was for approval of RP -4, Wind Design
Standard for Ballasted Single-Ply Roofing
Systems. RP -4 requires special inspections
for compliance with RP -4. The standard is
based upon the 2005 version of ASCE 7.
CODE ACTION COMMITTEES
During the last code cycle, ICC created
Code Action Committees (CACs) to encourage
participation and discussion surrounding
the code development process. There
are four committees that have been created
to address all 15 volumes of the codes. The
four committees are:
• Building Code Action Committee
(BCAC)
• Fire Code Action Committee (FCAC)
• P lumbing, Mechanical, and Fuel Gas
Code Action Committee (PMGCAC)
• Sustainability, Energy, & High-
Performance Building Code Action
Committee (SEHPCAC)
Table 3 indicates the responsibilities of
each code action committee.
The committees meet approximately
three times per year and communicate via
phone conference in the intervening time.
Individuals may submit proposals to the
committee for review, and the committee
may generate its own proposals. The CACs
have been successful with code changes
and help to provide a forum for consensus
before arriving at the code hearings, as well
as opportunities for input from the stakeholders.
The SEHPBCAC is reviewing a proposal
to make the definition of “repair” consistent
with the IBC, to define repair as “the
reconstruction or renewal of any part of
an existing building for the purpose of its
maintenance.” Included in the proposal
is a new chapter on Existing Buildings
that incorporates some of the provisions
and requirements of the IEBC on defining
alterations, additions, repairs, and change
of occupancy.
Also proposed by the SEHPCAC is a
proposal to add to the IECC a definition of
“roof covering replacement” as an alteration
consisting of the removal of the existing
roof covering and installation of a new roof
covering. The proposal would also bring
requirements into the IECC from the IgCC
to require low-slope roofs with insulation
entirely above the deck to meet the IECC’s
insulation provisions when the roof covering
is removed and replaced. An exception
is allowed for instances where the thickness
of the insulation cannot be provided due to
existing roof conditions, HVAC equipment,
low door or glazing heights, parapet wall
heights, or proper flashing heights.
During past code cycles, the Department
of Energy (DOE ) has requested that the
energy code be revised to reduce energy
consumption by 30% by the completion of
the 2012 codes. Those changes were accomplished,
but not without hard-fought battles
on several issues. One of the hard battles
was the requirement to increase R-values
for walls with continuous insulation, thus
eliminating the possibility of providing all
the insulation in the wall cavity, as well
as no possibility to provide trade-offs with
more efficient equipment, for example, to
achieve the same energy consumption. The
DOE was opposed to wall cavity insulation
because of thermal bridging with larger stud
sizes, and trade-offs because the equipment
could be changed or altered after installation,
but the building envelope would
probably not be altered during the life of
the building. The SEP HCAC is planning to
propose that all climate zones have the ability
to provide cavity insulation to meet the
requirements of the IECC.
The BCAC has been considering a proposal
that would delete Chapter 34, “Existing
Buildings,” from the IBC. Currently, the
information in Chapter 34 is contained in
two locations (both the IBC and the IEBC)
and must be correlated. It is felt that the
information should appear in one location
only. Many jurisdictions do not adopt the
IEBC and rely on Chapter 34 of the IBC to
address existing buildings. If Chapter 34
is deleted and jurisdictions do not adopt
the IEBC, there will be no mechanism for
jurisdictions to place any requirements on
existing buildings.
ICC is moving toward deleting language
from the various standards and only referencing
or amending them in the code. ASCE
7 and ACI 318 are two examples of standards
that are referenced in the codes, with
portions of those standards being reprinted
in the codes in the past. The reprinted portions
of the standards are being deleted and
referred to in the codes. This strategy is for
the same reason as deletion of Chapter 34
from the IBC: It is too cumbersome and
subject to error to maintain provisions from
standards in the code instead of referencing
the user to the standard. There are some
instances where the ICC has amended
the requirements contained within
some standards, and those provisions
are maintained in the code.
CONCLUSION
Before beginning any project,
check with your local jurisdiction
for local code requirements. While
some states adopt one code that is
mandatory throughout the state,
many states do not adopt codes;
and it is left up to the jurisdiction
to decide whether to adopt a code,
which code to adopt, and whether
to write amendments to the code.
Building codes and code
requirements are becoming more
Committee Name Primary Responsibility
Building Code Action Committee (BCAC) IBC Chapters 1-6, 10-13, 15-25, 27-35
IEBC
IPMC
IRC Chapters 1-10
IZC
Fire Code Action Committee (FCAC) IBC Chapters 7, 8, 9, 14, and 26
IFC, ICC Performance Code, IWUIC
Plumbing, Mechanical, and Fuel Gas IFGC, IMC, IPC, IPSDC
Code Action Committee (PMGCAC) IRC Chapters 12-33
ISPSC
Sustainability, Energy, & High-Performance IECC, IgCC
Building Code Action Committee (SEHPCAC) IRC Chapter 11
Table 3 – Code Action Committee Responsibilities.
2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3 E d w a r d s • 8 7
and more complex as new materials and
construction techniques are being developed
in an effort to hold down construction
costs and to address emerging green
construction practices, and the increased
demand for energy conservation contributes
to the complexity of the codes.
Architects and engineers are challenged
to stay abreast of the content of the code
and the standards referenced within the
body of the code. ICC produces a number
of reference documents, webinars, and educational
courses that assist in interpretation
and application of the code. Those
documents may be found in the “Store,”
“Education,” and “Certification” sections on
the ICC website.
RCI members are encouraged to participate
in all phases of the code development
process and to contact RCI staff with comments
or code proposals.
8 8 • E d w a r d s 2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3
Appendix A
2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3 E d w a r d s • 8 9
Appendix B
9 0 • E d w a r d s 2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3
Appendix B continued
2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3 E d w a r d s • 9 1
Appendix B continued
9 2 • E d w a r d s 2 8 t h R C I I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n a n d T r a d e S h o w • M a rc h 1 4 – 1 9 , 2 0 1 3
Appendix B continued