• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Should Codes be based upon Science/Risk or Consensus?

F

FyrBldgGuy

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
356
Our Consensus based system allows for opinion by the majority to set the rule of law. Should that change to a scientific risk based system?

Forget for your status as a code official, or architect, or builder.

How many discussions and arguments at code hearings have little to do with science? Or Risk?

So before we decide how many nails are required per foot of sheetrock, or size of rebar, or sprinkler protection should there be a scientific equation to measure the probability of collapse, fire, injury or death?

Should the code committees be replaced with scientists and actuaries?
 
FyrBldgGuy said:
Should the code committees be replaced with scientists and actuaries?
Click to expand...
English Majors.

I'm all for people that can complete the code subject so that it's black or white and not this gray-open to interperts-code we have now. Really makes it harder when one AHJ is different from the next in applying a universal code.
 
Codes should be uniformly interpreted.

Codes should be more rational and based on science.

A key problem is that we are currently not able to objectively and quantitatively define many of the factors needed for a truly rational code.

In many cases there is no objective agreement on what we want and in many more we do not have scientific data upon which to make a decision.

Even when we can objectively define the provision the decision as to the value of the various parameters is often tied to questions of public policy. For example should our codes be limited to issues of health and life safety or should we regulate higher levels of performance.

In many cases we will find ourselves with two competing objectives.

Assuming that we could come up with a truly objective set of codes we are still faced with the need to convince jurisdictions to adopt it. Such decisions are biased by political considerations, the fact that many individuals do not have the ability to understand the science or logic used, and the reality that individuals will differ on the objectives.

Uniform enforcement will be a problem both because of ambiguity in the codes themselves but also because those interpreting codes have radically differing levels of education and knowledge.

We should strive for more objectivity in our codes and more uniformity in enforcement but we should also realize that there will be few clean solutions.
 
FyrBldgGuy said:
Should the code committees be replaced with scientists and actuaries?
Click to expand...
No way! Do we want to make the entire code development process turn as slowly as the Energy Code?
 
High Desert said:
No way! Do we want to make the entire code development process turn as slowly as the Energy Code?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately High Desert is correct, the entire "scientific industry" has sold out to commercial and political interests, Joe Lstiburek's Building Science Corporation started out well-intentioned, but has sold out to building material suppliers who are valled "sponsors", they published a list of those sponsors, but the last I looked that list has been taken down. A good example is 10 years ago when Tyvek couldn't pass the boat test and achieved approval as only an air barrier, not a WRB, Lstiburek was testifying in court against it, DuPont had an additional test implemented called a "hydrostatic pressure test" which it could pass, became a "sponsor" of Building Science Corporation, and Lstiburek now touts it (but on close inspection he always puts it behind a rain screen) . Frank Woeste's building science is much better, but he still takes money from industry, his studies on decks are excellent, but close inspection prominently displays Simpson stickers on his metal, I guess somebody's got to pay for science.

We have a real problem with science in the world today, a gal with some real guts in exposing this is Dr. Lisa Bero from UCSF, she has exposed the fact that drug studies favor the granting agency by 35 to 1, and the building materials industry is no different than the drug industry, if any of you have time it's worth while watching and listening to Dr. Bero.

I will conclude by stating that much has been made of President Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the nation wherein he warned to be cautious of the military industrial complex, most who quote him ignore the end of his warning:

\ said:
....we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Click to expand...
Dr. Bero is employed by UCSF, yet she has the guts to stand up and expose them, those here who enfoce codes should stand up for what they believe and not become captive to their employers just to keep their jobs.
 
Should the code committees be replaced with scientists and actuaries?
Click to expand...
No!

Being involved in the NFPA process for many years; I can agree that a blended approach is best that being using science and educated risk assessment. The key is educated not fly by the pants assessment. I can't speak for the ICC code committees since I never had a desire to serve their system. I can say with confidence that the NFPA committees use both science and knowledgable risk contributions to the development meetings.

I have had some heated arguments with some engineers on the variables not accounted for just because the wind shifted outside and affected heat propagation.
 
Should the code committees be replaced with scientists and actuaries?
Click to expand...
No!

Being involved in the NFPA committee process for many years; I can agree that a blended approach is best; that being science and educated risk assessment. The key is "educated" not fly by the pants assessment. I can't speak for the ICC code committees since I never had a desire to serve their system. I can say with confidence that the NFPA committees use both science and knowledgable risk assessments during contributions to the development meetings.

I have had some heated arguments with some engineers on the variables not accounted for just because potentials for wind shift outside affecting heat propagation within a structure.

Oh yea, we will NEVER have "Uniform Interpretation" regardless of text or commentary.....we are all human ;)
 
Having participated in ICBO, ICC and NFPA processes I have never found any action to be without an agenda that had nothing to do with science. There is always a financial element regarding how the codes are established. Even testing organizations get pushed to modify tests to meet one product conditions rather than another.
 
Now the so-called stakeholders drive the process, stakeholders, defined as anyone with a political or financial interest, should be banned from the process, as well as banned from influencing the outcome of any code hearings with financial incentives.
 
conarb said:
Now the so-called stakeholders drive the process, stakeholders, defined as anyone with a political or financial interest, should be banned from the process, as well as banned from influencing the outcome of any code hearings with financial incentives.
Click to expand...
I always wonder what the world would look like without usuary, and without the concept of insurance ever being thought of?
 
n.
  1. One who holds the bets in a game or contest.
  2. One who has a share or an interest, as in an enterprise.
Click to expand...
I don't wonder that someone would ask, I first heard the term when I called Building Standards in Sacramento when I was fighting the IRC, I was told that input would be received from all stakeholders, it blew me away at the time to think that stakeholders were driving the code adoption process. Stakeholders could be anyone of a variety of people and interests, basically it's anyone having a financial interest in the outcome, like the NAHB wanting a code that's cheaper to build to on one side, and the structural engineers associations wanting a more thorough code that required engineering on the other. In the residential sprinkler debate the major stakeholders were the Coalition of sprinkler manufacturers wanting to sell sprinklers on one side, on the other the NAHB wanting to build cheaper by not installing sprinklers. The plastics and chemical industry supporting the sprinkler manufacturers to sell their products, but the pipe fitting trades had a stake in the game too, they wanted to support the sprinkler mandate to provide more work for their members, yet they didn't want plastic included in the mandate that would require less work and could be performed by unskilled or even illegal tradesmen. The problem in allowing opposing stakeholders to drive the process is that it always ends up in compromise, in the sprinkler situation the compromise was for the builders to drop opposition to the sprinklers and in turn they would be allowed tradeoffs so their homes could be built for even less than before, the main one being reduced setback requirements so more homes could be built in every subdivision, along with other health and safety reductions.
 
We are "ALL "stakeholders" and yes some can and do corrupt the process which is all the more reason to have greater involvement in the entire process regarding code development.
 
Mark K said:
Codes should be uniformly interpreted.
Click to expand...
I will try to respond without any demoninational reference

When people contact me at the office and suggest that RI look into the adoption of a Uniform Statewide Code i respond

We bought that t-shirt in 1977

We do have a single publication that we all read from.

If you want a book that all people read and interperate differently "BUY A BIBLE"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top