So I'm a UK native who moved to the USA, my undergrad degree is in architectural design, and in applying for architectural designer/drafter positions here in the US, a lot of firms list knowledge of the state building codes as a requirement for application.
Is there an overview of what I need to know as a starting point rather than having to go through the 9 volumes one by one?
Any advice is much appreciated! Thanks in advance.
I'd start with the IRC and IBC as those two are the primary ones for a architectural firm. Research the firms you are applying to; residential (under 3 connected units) or commercial. You may only need to know the IBC or IRC depending.
For commercial work, codes are IBC, ADAAG and sometimes NFPA 101. Residential will be IRC. There is a lot of variation from place to place however. Just about every USA jurisdiction is going to have local amendments and sometimes there is major variation from the "model" code as written by the ICC.
Know that knowledge of the code in a USA office setting means there a few basic things you should know by heart and knowing that you need to go look in the code book for the rest. Don't think you have to have it all memorized.
The first thing you grab as a junior is Building code illustrated by Francis Ching. Nice graphic. Or go with raw IBC like a pro. Then get the ICC A117.1 Accessibility code. It will be your bread and butter no matter what project you do. And then IECC for energy. The rest is consultant. And other local stuff you research as you go.
I second this BCI recommendation. I got an older used copy as a junior and while the references are outdated, it still gives the gist and enough so I can look up stuff in IBC.
You're going to want to know in order of importance:
IBC (verify what year is being used) International Building Code
ICCA117.1 -(probably the 2009 but verify year being used) ADA
IECC (verify what year is being used) International Energy Conservation Code
Here is the weird part. The IBC (International Building Code) references the IFC (International Fire Code) which references certain section of the NFPA. These areas tend to deal with fire rated assemblies and automatic sprinklers. While this is getting rather detailed it can still impact your work in a rather frustrating manor (look at a post of mine in Thread Central about fire sprinklers under a stairway)
Something else to be aware of that in the US individual counties / cites in each state are able to adopt different versions of the above codes. For example you may have a county using the IBC 2015, ICC 2009, and the IEC 2012. Things get even more confusing when doing state or federal projects as they will have adopted different versions of the above codes. For example where I practice the county uses the IBC 2018, but if you do a state project in the county you must use the IBC 2015.
Good point! I'm old enough that I can't remember what I didn't (and still don't) know.
Nov 6, 20 11:54 am ·
·
mightyaa
The good news though is for the most part, the codes haven't changed significantly, so you can look at 2006 up and learn 90% of it. Little things are tweaked. As an example; I've done a few code studies recently using the '54 UBC, '60's something UBC, and the '73 UBC for exiting and rated assemblies versus currently adopted (a couple fire claims and a slip and fall stair involving a handrail failure)... not significantly different than the 2015 IBC other than nomenclature and expanding clarifying language. Modern codes down to specific language go back primarily to before WWII as well as the studies done when codes started being unified. Like 1 hour is based on a 1939 experiment igniting typical furnishing found in that use like an office; the peak heat of the fire lasted about 1 hour before it ran out of fuel. Ditto for 2hr, etc. which all was used as the basis of how long a building assembly had to resist the peak before failure.
There is quite a bit of difference between the 2015 and 2018 IBC - fire ratings, maximum height / area, sprinkler requirements, horizontal exits, elevator fire protection. Even more has changed between the 2015 and 2018 IECC.
Nov 6, 20 1:54 pm ·
·
mightyaa
Not really; the basics are still in there. Same as always; ratings are needed, max height, etc. 98% of any code study is just knowing there's a requirement and where to look. There has always been fire ratings, exiting requirements, max height and area calculations. I don't think any firm requires you to literally quote from memory the exact requirement; instead they want you to be able to spot a problem, look up the requirement and draw the detail correctly.
Basically, lets say a client wants a 4 story open stairway; you just need to know enough to play within the basic stair requirements to do it because you know it's possible, but not easy when the basic requirement is 'connecting no more than two floors' for open stairs. Detailed knowledge is knowing the several dozen ways to work around the base requirements and the newer codes just clamped down and clarified those work-arounds to put requirements on them... "Exit Stair," versus "Exit Access Stair" versus "Interior Exit" versus "Exterior Exit" versus minimum number and just closing it off, etc.
Easy 'test'... just crack open any old UBC book. It will be very familiar to you including the exact cut and paste language brought into the IBC. Only subtle changes and overhauls to certain sections.... just different chapters. It's one reason several jurisdictions held onto the '97 UBC forever before changing to the IBC. Several waited until the 2012 IBC release.
Unless you're in Georgia, then NFPA takes precedence over IBC often... which is to say your first thing to do is just check your local jurisdiction on what codes apply and have an idea of whether the firm you're applying to does just regional work or national, etc. If you're going to be learning code for a job, you might as well know the state-specific amendments while you learn.
IBC is a good starting point, but it really depends where you're working.
Being able to know where to find things is more critical for a young person in this field than knowing things.
It's always really funny to me, I've worked with a few very different codes, and they all have a lot of their own quirks so I have to look them up. But when you talk to someone who's used one a LOT they tend to 1) think that's the case everywhere, especially when it's only slightly different 2) tend to think something is a particular way based on past experience, but not necessarily supportable by code, even within the code they are familiar with.
I think sometimes it works better than it should because plancheckers do the same thing since they think they know the code.
Having knowledge is great, saves you a lot of time, but everyone still has to look stuff up to be right, and to learn, so knowing how to look, and what to look for is key.
Nov 6, 20 5:36 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Building Codes
Hey all,
So I'm a UK native who moved to the USA, my undergrad degree is in architectural design, and in applying for architectural designer/drafter positions here in the US, a lot of firms list knowledge of the state building codes as a requirement for application.
Is there an overview of what I need to know as a starting point rather than having to go through the 9 volumes one by one?
Any advice is much appreciated! Thanks in advance.
Start with the International Building Code. Not sure what you mean by 9 volumes.
I'm guessing it's the ICC series:
IRC, IBC, IEBC, IECC, etc.
I'd start with the IRC and IBC as those two are the primary ones for a architectural firm. Research the firms you are applying to; residential (under 3 connected units) or commercial. You may only need to know the IBC or IRC depending.
Then the IECC (conservation code)....
your local AIA chapter may offer periodic seminars on code issues for a pretty low fee. AIA Detroit shares slides from our presentations here:
https://aiadetroit.com/bcrc_re...
ANSI
I've been feeling a bit ANSI myself lately...
For commercial work, codes are IBC, ADAAG and sometimes NFPA 101. Residential will be IRC. There is a lot of variation from place to place however. Just about every USA jurisdiction is going to have local amendments and sometimes there is major variation from the "model" code as written by the ICC.
Know that knowledge of the code in a USA office setting means there a few basic things you should know by heart and knowing that you need to go look in the code book for the rest. Don't think you have to have it all memorized.
The first thing you grab as a junior is Building code illustrated by Francis Ching. Nice graphic. Or go with raw IBC like a pro. Then get the ICC A117.1 Accessibility code. It will be your bread and butter no matter what project you do. And then IECC for energy. The rest is consultant. And other local stuff you research as you go.
I second this BCI recommendation. I got an older used copy as a junior and while the references are outdated, it still gives the gist and enough so I can look up stuff in IBC.
There are a lot of "code bootcamps" available nowadays
You're going to want to know in order of importance:
IBC (verify what year is being used) International Building Code
ICCA117.1 -(probably the 2009 but verify year being used) ADA
IECC (verify what year is being used) International Energy Conservation Code
Here is the weird part. The IBC (International Building Code) references the IFC (International Fire Code) which references certain section of the NFPA. These areas tend to deal with fire rated assemblies and automatic sprinklers. While this is getting rather detailed it can still impact your work in a rather frustrating manor (look at a post of mine in Thread Central about fire sprinklers under a stairway)
Something else to be aware of that in the US individual counties / cites in each state are able to adopt different versions of the above codes. For example you may have a county using the IBC 2015, ICC 2009, and the IEC 2012. Things get even more confusing when doing state or federal projects as they will have adopted different versions of the above codes. For example where I practice the county uses the IBC 2018, but if you do a state project in the county you must use the IBC 2015.
Confusing I know.
At the entry level, 117.1 and IBC are enough to work one. You can go a long time without ever referencing other codes
Good point! I'm old enough that I can't remember what I didn't (and still don't) know.
The good news though is for the most part, the codes haven't changed significantly, so you can look at 2006 up and learn 90% of it. Little things are tweaked. As an example; I've done a few code studies recently using the '54 UBC, '60's something UBC, and the '73 UBC for exiting and rated assemblies versus currently adopted (a couple fire claims and a slip and fall stair involving a handrail failure)... not significantly different than the 2015 IBC other than nomenclature and expanding clarifying language. Modern codes down to specific language go back primarily to before WWII as well as the studies done when codes started being unified. Like 1 hour is based on a 1939 experiment igniting typical furnishing found in that use like an office; the peak heat of the fire lasted about 1 hour before it ran out of fuel. Ditto for 2hr, etc. which all was used as the basis of how long a building assembly had to resist the peak before failure.
There is quite a bit of difference between the 2015 and 2018 IBC - fire ratings, maximum height / area, sprinkler requirements, horizontal exits, elevator fire protection. Even more has changed between the 2015 and 2018 IECC.
Not really; the basics are still in there. Same as always; ratings are needed, max height, etc. 98% of any code study is just knowing there's a requirement and where to look. There has always been fire ratings, exiting requirements, max height and area calculations. I don't think any firm requires you to literally quote from memory the exact requirement; instead they want you to be able to spot a problem, look up the requirement and draw the detail correctly. Basically, lets say a client wants a 4 story open stairway; you just need to know enough to play within the basic stair requirements to do it because you know it's possible, but not easy when the basic requirement is 'connecting no more than two floors' for open stairs. Detailed knowledge is knowing the several dozen ways to work around the base requirements and the newer codes just clamped down and clarified those work-arounds to put requirements on them... "Exit Stair," versus "Exit Access Stair" versus "Interior Exit" versus "Exterior Exit" versus minimum number and just closing it off, etc.
Interns really only need to know ada (117.1) and egress (mostly stair) requirements (ch. 10 of IBC)
Easy 'test'... just crack open any old UBC book. It will be very familiar to you including the exact cut and paste language brought into the IBC. Only subtle changes and overhauls to certain sections.... just different chapters. It's one reason several jurisdictions held onto the '97 UBC forever before changing to the IBC. Several waited until the 2012 IBC release.
LADDER RULE!
Unless you're in Georgia, then NFPA takes precedence over IBC often... which is to say your first thing to do is just check your local jurisdiction on what codes apply and have an idea of whether the firm you're applying to does just regional work or national, etc. If you're going to be learning code for a job, you might as well know the state-specific amendments while you learn.
IBC is a good starting point, but it really depends where you're working.
Being able to know where to find things is more critical for a young person in this field than knowing things.
It's always really funny to me, I've worked with a few very different codes, and they all have a lot of their own quirks so I have to look them up. But when you talk to someone who's used one a LOT they tend to 1) think that's the case everywhere, especially when it's only slightly different 2) tend to think something is a particular way based on past experience, but not necessarily supportable by code, even within the code they are familiar with.
I think sometimes it works better than it should because plancheckers do the same thing since they think they know the code.
Having knowledge is great, saves you a lot of time, but everyone still has to look stuff up to be right, and to learn, so knowing how to look, and what to look for is key.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.