• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Code & Validity

RJJ

RJJ

Co-Founder
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
2,939
Location
about 1' east of the white water
The questions was raised in another thread regarding the validity of the code. The term validity has been argued and discussed since the Greeks Philosophers. We all can assume and understanding of Validity or maybe not. How does a code get validity? Not looking for the legal answer of the state has adopted it or it is a law, but more in terms of practical application.

Validity: Has no agreed single definition! In the sense of a code, outside of the legal authority we could apply a concept of well grounded or justifiable. How do you reach this conclusion?

I believe we could agree that there is some validity to a simple equation of 2+2=4 or the square can be figured as 3x4 = 5.

How would you place validity in the context of a code?

Does a code need to be valid?

Are statics really important?
 
Rjj,

That's pretty deep. I'll have to go sit up in my tree this afternoon after the Miami/Clemson game and ponder a response while waiting to stick something. I'll get back to it :)
 
In general validity means that something does what it says it does, and doesn't do what it says it doesn't do.

In statistics it means that a measurement measures what it says it measures and doesn't measure what it doesn't say it measures.

In logic, validity means that the premises justify the conclusion.
 
It seems to me that a good majority of the building code is based on some past event (fire, collapse, death, etc.) which resulted in a changed practice. It then becomes a standard of practice acceptable to society. Over time, society changes its perception of what is and isn't accecptable.

A good example would be the automobile. If you really break it down, the Ford Model T is really all a vehicle needs. 4 wheels and tires, an engine, brakes, somewhere to sit, somewhere to store fuel, a steering wheel, etc... Compared to a horse and buggy, this was remarkable and considered quite safe. But over time, the acceptable risks associated with driving a car changed in society. Before long, society demands seat belts, anti-lock brakes, air bags, you get the idea.

Of course some of this has been driven by manufacturer's, some has been driven by insurance underwriters, some has been driven by fire service professionals, but it is really the perceived minimum demands of society which drives codes.

In reality, people shouldn't build structures within 10 miles of a coast line where hurricanes are frequent. But since society has the desire to live on the water, soicety demands a practice of construction that will withstand wind and flooding.

So is the code valid? Yes, to a society that demands it to be valid. But this measn there is a bunch of fears, deisres, and perceptions of safety that are built into it...
 
Bryan I have to take exception with society demanding any of these things. It is special interest and advocacy groups

Did society demand electrcicity and indoor plumbing no it was offered and they saw the benifits and where willing to pay for them. Same with AC, furnaces, refrigerators. Could you say the same for RFS or energy codes if given a choice. Probably the majority would say no to those requirements.

Society is not demanding Green and Leed codes they are being marketed to us by different groups with different agendas whether it is a believe to save the planet or a way to make money by legislating a requirement what ever the reason they are not valid as part of a building code

Sorry RJJ did mean to hijack your thread
 
Bryan is in Florida, where the IBC is modified for consistency with NFPA 101 and NFPA 1 and code changes have to be justified based on a rational nexus between the proposed change, economics and life safety within a public regulatory process. In other words, it's the land of milk and honey as far as the code adoption process goes (even though it is messy at times).

In Florida, there aren't residential sprinklers because NFPA 101 doesn't require them (ie, experience doesn't justify them). On the other hand, energy requirements for single family since have been around since about the time of the Carter administration.

In other words, the requirements are based first in public policy and experience not some committee theorizing about hazards.
 
Agree codes should reflect public policy. Too often those who participate in code writing activities promote their own preferences. Because the public is not aware of the dialogue and in many cases would have difficulty understanding the implications of the changes to the codes the changes get adopted. You also have local building officials who impose their own preferencces. We are all guilty.

This tendency can be moderated if 1) we recognize that the codes need to reflect public policy and that members of the public need to be involved in developing the policy and 2) if individuals involved in code development raise this concern when individuals try to subvert this concept.
 
MT: these comments are all in the spirit of the thread. The question first put to me by Brudgers is far reaching. When I first read it I had to sit back and try to digest the real concept. So no Hijack going on!
 
Mark K said more in a few words than meets the eye: 'The public is not aware of the dialogue...' Truer words were never spoken. The public is impacted by the building code and yet they are not aware that there is an ongoing process of refinement that happens to the code. Is the code valid? At any given moment in time, it is valid and it is beyond what is needed. Why are there so many amendments to the code? Because it is a model document that undergoes transformation at the whim of states, of big cities, small towns, etc. Rather than re-invent the wheel, the building code is validated by every jurisdiction that says, 'yeah, we can adopt this, but we'd like to change....' Their own changes are validate by their actions and by the people 'who are unaware of the dialogue' who go along with the requirements laid upon them at the local level.

Who is responsible? WE ARE. We have met the enemy and he is us. The codes do need to reflect public policy, but does public policy need to change to accommodate industry and code sales? I think not. Public policy needs to pay attention to the people over whom the policy governs. If something has worked for 100 years does it need to change? Maybe and maybe not. Change does not make the code more valid; in fact in some instances it may make it less valid. If the code were edited down to the bare bones, it might be a whole lot better. Every thing else is a choice. Which choice will we make?
 
RJJ,

WOW!!!

You dropped a big bomb with this one; and there is no right answer. There are many theories and writings on validity; as in the following;

http://www.yellowpigs.net/philosophy/valid_law

In reality; it comes down to;

1. Does the plan reviewer and/or inspector know enough of the code to differentiate what is and is not required?

2. Does the Building Official enforce the written requirements; use his/her personal judgement; conform to local practices; or submit to political pressures concerning code requirements?

All of #2 can be applied to #1.

The answer to both #1 and #2 is none of the above and some of the above.

Local practices and political pressures decide what is and is not valid; at the time that an action or inaction is required.

Just my opinion,

Uncle Bob
 
It was actually Brudgers who posed the question of validity. Most will want to rely on the fact that a state or other body has given it empowerment.

Brudgers answer of measurement is on topic. That fact that some have look at public awareness is important. Well a stretch. True most regulation come from public complaints. The recent gas explosion is case in point. Now we have a study for all codes and code bodies to have the same standard. This in the end will drive a justified conclusion. The standard will measure in some form what is and is not acceptable.

In the realm of codes I could add Time. Time is normally a measurement of how something performs. This factor I believe we all could embrace.

Validity: How does an inspector or plans examiner justify a position? Do we just believe what the code says to be absolute? This becomes a very complicated concept.
 
In order for a code section to be valid it must meet the sope and intent/purpose sections of the administrative portion of the code.
 
Understanding specific intent, potential difficulties in application, availabilities of alternative measures, acceptance and reasonable timelines with compliance initiatives creates validity in the code.
 
Well! we are starting to think! Good answers FM & MT.

Such a little word with so much complexity!

UB: You bet! Everyone of here have had the Political pressure on certian code issues.
 
In my previous life, prior to being a code official, I was designing and building nuclear power plants. These plants have many regulations, codes, requirements, etc. as you might imagine, but they all are supported by "Basis Documents" that while not code, provide the spirit or intent (basis) for each requirement. This is VERY valuable.

I think the codes (and especially the application of the codes) would be more valid if every code official, designer, and builder understood the basis of each requirement. I know that this is the intent of the commentary, but the commentary doesn't address the logic/history/spirit of each requirement, and consequently, they end-user doesn't always understand what is being satisfied by the requirement (assuming that there actually is a basis to each requirement!).

In my jursisdiction, if someone wants to propose an amendment to the model code prior to adoption, they must provide a legitimate justification for that amendment (other than "we don't do it that way"). I think at the code hearings, the justification for each code addition/change should be captured and published in a basis document - included online for anyone to research.
 
I too have worked in nuclear power plants and witnessed great expense of money to solve a single problem with the wrong solution.

If you want to talk validity then the occurence of Browns Ferry Fire on Nuclear Power is a great example.

The occasion began with an individual testing for air flow through potential openings in a wall. The method used was a candle flame. Any good fire usually starts with a bad idea. The flame was sucked through the wall and dust and combustible materials in a chase were ignited. The chase was full of cables and conductors for nuclear plant operations. There was great fear about using water to put out the fire, so for many hours no water was used. Finally, they asked the fire chief what to do, and after that they used water to put out the fire.

Now after thousands of hours of study and politics the NRC formed a solution that is still argued and debated today. In fact they have moved towards fire modelling to determine how bad a fire can get. But, like any fire model you can change the variables and come out with different answers.

Validity - if you want to put out fire... use water. If you want to avoid fire don't use candles to test for air leaks.

Basis - to produce power use a turbine to turn a generator. Everything else is about that.

Governance - the impression that one group provides over another with the belief that it is for the benefit of all.

Reality - if the want the permit don't **** off the plan reviewer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top