• 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

Tragedy to Transformation: How Building Codes Emerged to Protect Us

Throughout history, countless lives have been lost due to building failures, fires, and inadequate construction practices. However, these tragedies have catalyzed the development and evolution of building codes, transforming how we design, construct, and maintain buildings to prioritize public safety.

The Early Days of Unregulated Construction
In the 19th century and early 20th century, construction in the United States was largely unregulated, leading to numerous preventable disasters. Rapid urbanization, the use of new materials like steel and concrete, and a lack of safety standards created a perfect storm for catastrophic events.

One of the earliest and most devastating incidents was the Great Boston Fire of 1872, which destroyed over 700 buildings and caused widespread damage. The widespread use of combustible construction materials and the absence of fire safety regulations exacerbated the fire's rapid spread.

Another tragic event that highlighted the need for building regulations was the Pemberton Mill collapse in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in 1860. The failure of this textile mill, which claimed over 100 lives, raised concerns about structural integrity and the necessity for standards governing construction methods and materials.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire: A Catalyst for Change.
However, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City in 1911 truly served as a turning point in the development of building codes. This horrific fire, which claimed the lives of 146 garment workers, exposed the lack of fire safety measures, such as adequate exits and fire escapes, in many buildings.

The public outcry following the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory tragedy prompted significant reforms in building codes and labor laws, with a focus on fire safety and means of egress. This event was pivotal in recognizing the importance of regulating construction practices to protect public safety.

The Emergence of Model Codes
In the wake of these disasters, cities and states began to enact local building codes, recognizing the need to regulate construction practices. However, the patchwork of local regulations led to inconsistencies and difficulties in achieving uniformity across regions.

To address this issue, model code organizations emerged, such as the National Board of Fire Underwriters, which published the first National Building Code in 1905. This model code served as a foundation for local jurisdictions to adopt and adapt to their specific needs, promoting greater consistency in building standards.

Over time, regional model code organizations, including the Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA), the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI), played a significant role in developing and promoting model codes within their respective regions.

The Birth of the International Building Code
In 1994, the BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI merged to form the International Code Council (ICC), which published the first edition of the International Building Code (IBC) in 2000. The IBC and other International Codes developed by the ICC have since become the predominant model code adopted and enforced by most states and local jurisdictions across the United States.

The IBC and its companion codes cover various aspects of building design, construction, and maintenance, including structural integrity, fire safety, accessibility, energy efficiency, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems. These codes are regularly updated to incorporate new technologies, materials, and best practices, ensuring that building standards evolve to meet society's changing needs.

Lessons from Modern Tragedies
Despite the advancements in building codes, incidents continue to occur, serving as sobering reminders of the importance of code compliance and enforcement. The Surfside condominium collapse in 2021, which claimed 98 lives, highlighted the need for proper maintenance and inspections throughout a structure's lifespan and the consequences of neglecting these essential aspects of building safety.

The Oakland "Ghost Ship" warehouse fire in 2016, which resulted in 36 fatalities, brought attention to the issue of buildings being repurposed without proper permits or adherence to fire and safety codes. This tragedy underscored the necessity of enforcing code requirements, even in non-traditional or unconventional structures.

The Hard Rock Hotel collapse in New Orleans in 2019, which killed three workers during construction, serves as a reminder that code violations and structural deficiencies can have devastating consequences, even in modern construction projects.

The Ongoing Evolution of Building Codes
Building codes are not static; they are living documents that continuously evolve to address new challenges and incorporate advancements in construction techniques, materials, and technologies. For example, in recent years, building codes have emphasized energy efficiency, sustainability, and resilience to natural disasters, reflecting society's changing priorities and the need to adapt to environmental and climate-related challenges.

Furthermore, developing new construction materials, such as advanced composites and high-performance concrete, necessitates updating building codes to ensure their safe and proper use. Additionally, the integration of emerging technologies, like building information modeling (BIM) and prefabricated construction methods, requires code provisions to keep pace with these innovations.

Ensuring Compliance and Enforcement
While building codes provide a comprehensive framework for safe and resilient construction, their effectiveness relies heavily on compliance and enforcement by authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs). Regular inspections, rigorous permitting processes, and strict adherence to code requirements are crucial to preventing incidents and ensuring public safety.

Tragedies like the Surfside condominium collapse and the Hard Rock Hotel collapse serve as stark reminders that complacency regarding code compliance can have catastrophic consequences. Building owners, contractors, and AHJs must remain vigilant in upholding and enforcing building code requirements throughout a structure's lifespan, from design and construction to ongoing maintenance and repairs.

Looking Ahead: Building a Safer Future
Building codes have come a long way since the days of unregulated construction, transforming from a patchwork of local regulations to comprehensive, nationally adopted standards. The hard-learned lessons of countless tragedies drove this transformation, each one serving as a catalyst for improvement and reform.

As our cities and communities continue to grow and evolve, the role of building codes in protecting public safety and welfare remains paramount. By continuously adapting to new challenges, incorporating emerging technologies, and prioritizing enforcement and compliance, building codes will continue to play a vital role in safeguarding lives and ensuring the resilience of our built environment.

The evolution of building codes is a testament to humanity's ability to learn from tragedy and transform adversity into progress. Each disaster, while tragic, has contributed to our understanding of the importance of regulating construction practices and has paved the way for a safer, more resilient future.
 
Seems like we've done pretty good with fire. Structural failures are a little odd because we know how to do it. Sanitation successful. Fall hazards, on the other hand, are still a major problem. Codes tend to focus on the large loss of life events, and falls are one person at a time events, just a lot more bodies all together.
 
Structural failures are a little odd because we know how to do it.

We theoretically know how to do it, and yet we still have collapses. This underscores the importance of qualified professionals performing the design, and code officials actually doing their job and checking what the design professionals have come up with. Several examples from my own checkered background:

#1: A decade or so ago I was brought in by an engineering as the special inspections coordinator for a fairly significant project for the state department of transportation. It was a bus garage, with indoor parking, refueling, and service bays for 120 city buses. Obviously, there were some long spans. It was one story, and the structure was steel trusses. The design drawings and the truss shop drawings both included notes than any concentrated loads of more than 50 pounds were to be supported within 4 inches of panel points, or additional struts had to be field-installed to transfer the loads to the panel points. So the information was there, and the truss manufacturer was aware of it.

The heating system included an overhead, two-pipe system that left the boiler room, made a complete loop around the building near the exterior walls, and then returned to the boiler room. The pipes were schedule 80 steel pipe. Sizes were 8" minimum, 12" maximum, and as the supply pipe became smaller the return pipe became larger (in other words, the pairing at various points was 12+8, 10+10, and then 8+12). Trusses were five feet on center, and these pipes were suspended from alternate trusses (10 feet on center). And, of course, the hangers weren't within 4 inches of panel points. It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that a ten-foot length of schedule 80 steel pipe filled with water weighs quite bit more than 50 pounds. I raised this early on and the contractor consistently said they'd address that "later." We got down to final inspections and "later" still hadn't arrived. At that point, the contractor tried to say that there wasn't a problem. The state arranged for the contractor to bring an engineer from the truss manufacturer to the site for a meeting. The contractors project manager led us all to the building and pointed the truss engineer to a point where the 12" pipe happened to run parallel to the truss, so the hangers were within 4" of the panel points. I then took the engineer over to where both pipes ran perpendicular to the trusses and both were suspended close to the mid-point between the panel points. The engineer took one look, said "Oh, ****," and then told the contractor's project manager that "We've gotta talk."

They had a welding crew come in and spend two weeks doing nothing but adding struts to the trusses.


#2: Read up on what caused the collapse of the catwalks at the Kansas City Hyatt Regency hotel. The design was correct (sort of). The problem was that the detailer(s) for the steel fabricator didn't want to have to thread massive steel rods for their full length of thirty or more feet, so they revised the design -- without realizing that the change significantly increased the load on critical structural members. And whoever reviewed the shop drawings for the structural engineer of record didn't notice the change, or didn't recognize the significance.


#3: This is one I think I've posted about previously. Simple, preengineered steel building using arch frames with no interior columns. Horizontal thrust at the frame bases was to be resisted by hairpin ties into the slab. Drawings were on the title sheets of a local engineering firm (engineer #2) and had a seal and signature. In reviewing it, something didn't feel right to me. It occurred to me that we had recently reviewed another, smaller, per-engineered steel building that was designed by a different engineer (engineer #1). I decided to compare the two. In doing so, I found that engineer #2 had simply scanned the foundation details from the other project, with no changes, and put them on his title sheets (with a copyright notice, if you can believe it). Building 2 is 50% wider and twice as high as building #1. I called engineer #1 and asked if he had given engineer #2 permission to reproduce his details. The answer was no. When I described the size of building #2 to engineer #1, his response was, "I wouldn't think that would stand up."


#4: Simple, two-story house design. Our residential inspector had jumped to a position in a larger municipality and his replacement hadn't been hired, so I was reviewing house plans as well as commercial projects. Had a set of plans by a home designer (not an architect) who did all the homes for a local developer/builder. Main carrying beams in the basement were to be LVLs. I got out an LVL span chart and started checking, and one of them looked off. I questioned it. The builder was irate, but he begrudging called the designer and asked her to send me the LVL calcs. She called him back and told him that when she ran it through whatever LVL software she uses, that beam needed to be a 3x11-1/4 rather than the 3x9-1/4 she had called for. Oops.


The building permit and inspection process is a system of checks and balances. Designers are supposed to design it right -- but they're human. Sometimes they miss something, other times they cut corners. It's our job as plan reviewers and construction inspectors to try to pick up the places where the designer (for whatever reason) goofed. We can't just see a seal on a set of construction documents and rubber stamp it.

Murphy's Law remains in effect: "Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong."
 
Top