Michael J. Madden is a principal at Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc., Los Angeles, California. He can be reached at mmadden@gagebabcock.com. This is his first article for Facilities Manager.

Over the past few years, there have been many changes made in the construction code arena that have impacted the development and adoption of building codes within the United States. The movement from regionally developed model-building codes such as the Building Officials and Code Administration (BOCA) National Building Code, the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) Standard Building Code, and the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code to two international sets of codes may prove to have a significant effect on higher education institutions in terms of planning, design, construction, and renovation of facilities.

A Tale of Two Codes
In 1994, the International Code Council (ICC) was established as a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing a single set of comprehensive and coordinated national model construction codes. The ICC was formed as a joint venture from the three existing model building code development organizations-the BOCA, the SBCCI, and the ICBO. The goal of the ICC was to create a consistent, unified system that would stimulate the building community, improve safety, and create safer and more efficient and durable buildings and homes. The ICC achieved this goal with the publishing of the International Building Code (IBC) in the year 2000. ICC is now working on the development of the 2003 edition of the IBC. To support their code adoption efforts, the ICC has signed an agreement with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to distribute the ICC's International Codes via the ANSI Online Electronic Standards Store (http://webstore.ansi.org).

The nonprofit National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has also developed a set of building codes, NFPA 5000 Building Code, which were accepted by the NFPA membership at the World Safety Conference and Exposition in May 2002. At its July 2002 meeting. the NFPA Standards Council approved the NFPA Building Code for release. The NFPA has been involved in the development of codes and standards for fire protection and safety for over 100 years, but the new NFPA 5000 is the first comprehensive building code document that the organization has developed. The new NFPA Building Code will have a similar format to many of the current model building codes that deal with safety from fire, structural failure, safety during building use, and safety from unwanted entry and exposure to hazardous materials. NFPA 5000 also has many new provisions involving performance-based design and new concepts regarding construction type and height per area requirements. Since August 2002, the NFPA has been offering both the NFPA 5000 and NFPA 1 (Fire Prevention Code) for review and purchase on their website (www.nfpa.org). NFPA also offers training, free of charge, for code enforcement personnel in jurisdictions that adopt the NFPA Building Code.

The primary difference between the NFPA Building Code and the ICC Building Code is their approach to organization. The IBC is a "systems oriented" publication with chapters structured around specific systems such as fire resistant construction, means of egress, fire protection systems, interior environment systems, structural design concerns, etc. The NFPA 5000 Building Code is an "occupancy oriented" publication based on occupancy types (i.e., assembly, healthcare, and residential occupancies). The NFPA document, like the NFPA Life Safety Code, includes a chapter that addresses these specific occupancy requirements.

Another differentiation between the two building codes is the manner in which they were developed. The NFPA codes and standards development process is an ANSI-accredited consensus code development process, that is based upon the openness of the process, the balance of participant interests in the process, and consensus. Both the NFPA and ICC processes are open to public input and involvement, but the difference between the two processes is the manner in which the two bodies actually approve the documents.

In the NFPA process, all NFPA members, regardless of affiliation or interest, have an opportunity to vote on document approval. In the ICC process, only code enforcement officials currently have voting privileges in the approval of the ICC Codes. This distinction may be a topic of discussion when state and local jurisdictions look at adopting one code over the other.

For over 40 years, the design community has been pushing for a single set of model construction codes for use throughout the country. With the development of the IBC and NFPA 5000, the reality of two new and separate sets of codes is upon us. Although not completely successful in reaching one set of codes, the development of two codes does result in the likelihood that the various jurisdictions will adopt one set or the other. The hope is that the adoption of one set of codes will bring about efficiencies in research and development within the manufacturing sector; result in uniform education and certification programs on an international basis; and reduce the number of states and localities that currently write their own codes or amend the model codes. More uniform adoption will lead to more consistent code enforcement, higher quality construction, and the ability of code organizations to better focus their energies in the areas of code adoption, code enforcement, and enhanced membership services.

The next few years, however, will be ones of continuous flux as jurisdictions look at adopting the new codes and replacing existing ones. In the long term, there will be two coordinated model construction code sets being used in this country. In the short term, there will be two new documents, three previously existing model code documents, and numerous state and local codes and model amendments. Higher education facility personnel will need to keep abreast of state and local code development activities to stay informed as to the status of current building codes in their jurisdictions, and the status of code development and code adoption processes.

Performance Based Design (PBD) Option
Within the IBC 2003 edition, the NFPA 5000 set of codes, and the 2000 edition of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, there is a new approach to the design of buildings called the performance-based design (PBD) option. The PBD option is an alternative design method to the traditional application of prescriptive code requirements found in these codes. Performance-based design represents a choice between adhering to the prescriptive requirements of the traditional building code, or developing performance-based engineering solutions that comply with the intent of the building code and meet the goals and objectives of the building users, owners, and other stakeholders.

Prior to the two new code documents, none of the previous model building or fire codes provided comprehensive guidance on PBD, even though the concept has been around for some time. In fact, performance-based design has been used successfully in other countries, including Australia, New Zealand, and Great Britain. And in this country, the development and justification of code compliance alternatives, under the alternate methods and materials provisions of the building code, has often been labeled as performance-based design.

The development of engineering solutions for performance-based fire safety designs may use advanced fire modeling techniques to assess a variety of fire scenarios. With recent advancements, our understanding of the chemical and physical processes involved in building fires and the availability of faster processing speeds, computer fire modeling is now a commonly used tool for performance-based design. It is used in evaluating the level of safety of atria, the analysis of building egress systems, and the design of fire suppression and alarm systems. What was unthinkable only ten years ago is now an affordable engineering tool.

The performance-based option can be used on both new and retrofit design projects and provides greater flexibility for the design community. It also requires a higher level of engineering expertise and a greater understanding of acceptable levels of safety and protection. This results in the likelihood that performance-based designs will be reserved for more complex higher education design or retrofit projects, such as historic facilities, assembly buildings, and stadiums. In order to successfully implement an alternative method using the performance-based approach, the designer must prove to the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) that the building's design meets the intent of the applicable prescriptive codes.

Within the higher education community, this may be a representative of the campus community or a person with local jurisdiction (fire marshal, city code official, etc.). It is important to note that the NFPA 5000 does allow the AHJ to require an independent, third-party review of PBD plans at the owner's expense. Due to the higher level of expertise required for a PBD option, it is important that the educational community choose designers with the proper level of expertise, either within their organization or as part of their team of sub-consultants.

How Am I Affected?
It is extremely important that all decision makers within the higher education community be aware of the new building codes, the effect they will have on their campus, and the status of code development and adoption efforts within their own jurisdiction. An understanding of the new codes will help the higher education professional perform better long- term planning, ensure more cost effective implementation of campus upgrades and new construction projects, and facilitate more flexibility and creativity in the design process. In some cases, adoption of either the IBC or NFPA 5000 will result in the elimination of multiple building codes. This should make the design and construction process more straightforward and cost effective, and allow for better use of national, high profile design firms. With the current trend toward the design of signature buildings on campuses, the adoption of one set of codes should result in improved efficiency, more innovative designs, and better resolution of difficult retrofit issues.