For the first time in U.S. model building code history, tornado design provisions for Risk Category III and IV buildings are given in the 2024 IBC. In fact, John ‘Buddy’ Showalter and Sandra Hyde have an excellent article on this, “2024 IBC Significant Structural Changes — Loads,” which was republished here in August 2024. The 2024 IBC Figure 1609.5 defines the tornado-prone region of the U.S. which is consistent with the NOAA map for the average annual number of tornadoes per state per year (Figure 1).
The availability of the new codified tornado design provisions begs the question — when should the new provisions be implemented for larger occupancy public buildings?
Code Adoption by State
Many states, known as “home rule states,” have municipalities that adopt and update their codes independently of the state. An estimate of the maximum number of years before the most recent IBC is adopted by a state is approximately 10 years (https://www.iccsafe.org/building-safety-journal/bsj-technical/2024international-building-code-tornado-loads-and-community-based-implementation/#). The ordinary lag between the IBC edition and state adoption suggests many high occupancy or essential buildings (Category III and IV) will be built and placed in-service without the safety benefits stemming from tornado design load considerations over the next decade.
Opportunities for Community Leaders
In the context of planning a new elementary school and occupancy greater than 250, a local registered design professional (RDP) and Component Manufacturer (CM) have an opportunity to provide community leadership by communicating the potential benefits of requiring tornado wind design per the 2024 IBC. Community input by an RDP and CM could be pivotable for the structural wind design, reducing the code-adoption gap (typically 3–10 years). A local General Contractor (GC) could provide leadership by serving on a planning committee and responding to construction-related questions. Through community leadership, relationships between RDP, CM, and GC may evolve and be beneficial for years.
Asking AI for Feedback
The ubiquitous use of artificial intelligence (AI) in our lives prompted me to consider how it could be applied in this situation. Currently, AI can provide quick feedback on any subject, including ethical principles, in a constructive and friendly manner. Moreover, a question we pose can yield insight into issues that may not have occurred to us regarding our daily work, skills, and professional growth.
The key to a productive inquiry is a clear and limited question which forms the basis of internet research, interpretation, and compilation. Changing or adding one word can produce widely varying results, so questions must be stated concisely.
Question Posed to ChatGPT
Based on the ASCE Code of Ethics and Virginia design professional regulations laws, I asked ChatGPT this question on October 14:
“What are the ethical implications of not disclosing or advising the Client as to availability of codified design provisions in the most recent IBC edition that improve building safety and resilience?”
The ChatGPT answer was:
“Short answer: failing to tell a client that newer, codified IBC provisions exist which would improve safety and resilience can violate core ethical duties — especially the duty to hold the public’s safety, health, and welfare paramount, to act competently, to disclose material information and alternatives, and to document informed client decisions. It can create ethical exposure under ASCE’s Code of Ethics and regulatory exposure under Virginia’s professional responsibility rules, and it increases legal and malpractice risk. (American Society of Civil Engineers+1)”
The ChatGPT response contained a staggering amount of information with weblinks for the sources.
A ChatGPT link to the entire response along with a checklist is available online, and it was divided into four major categories with bullets for each category. In the interest of space, only a select number of points are excerpted here as follows:
Why — the obligations that matter
- Documentation, seal, and responsibility.
In Virginia affixing a stamp/seal indicates the professional has exercised direct control and is responsible for the sealed documents. If an engineer seals documents while knowingly omitting available code-based safety improvements (or failing to advise the client), that raises both ethical and regulatory exposure. (Prince William County Government)
Practical ethical (and near-legal) consequences
- Liability / malpractice risk — omission of known safer/code-compliant options can be evidence of negligent practice in civil suits.
When nondisclosure is especially problematic
- The newer IBC provisions materially increase life-safety or disaster resilience (e.g., seismic, flood, fire, egress) or change required design paths.
- The owner’s objectives include safety, resilience, or seeking code upgrades.
How to comply (recommended actions an engineer should take now)
- Proactively identify relevant code changes — compare the project’s governing edition with newer IBC editions for materially different provisions affecting safety/resilience.
- Disclose to the client, in writing, the existence and effect of those provisions — explain benefits, performance differences, cost/schedule impacts, and whether the jurisdiction will accept or require the newer provisions. (See sample language [in full response].)
- Document the client’s informed decision — get written direction (email or signed memo) if the client elects not to adopt newer provisions. This both protects the client and documents your professional advice.
- Amend scope/contract if the client requests adoption — update fee/schedule and obtain a new authorization.
- If public safety is at risk, escalate — if the client refuses to take a safety-improving action that you reasonably believe will cause imminent harm, follow the ASCE/NSPE guidance on withdrawal or notification of appropriate authorities (and document everything). (American Society of Civil Engineers+1)
Conclusions
Regarding the issue of an adopted building code in a jurisdiction versus an update that is included in a later IBC edition, a general practice might be to follow the advice of the acronym “ADD” — Advise the Client of relevant code updates, Discuss with the Client, and Document the Client’s decisions. By learning about the ethical and legal issues that were summarized from the AI inquiry, the RDP with input from their legal counsel should be better prepared to identify potential ethical and legal issues that could be involved for different project types in a specific state. (Note, the ChatGPT information here is specific to Virginia and analyses for other states will differ in the details and professional references.)
Of course, any information abstracted from an AI platform must be verified and/or validated before relying on it. In wood construction, information can be verified by codes and standards available from authoritative sources such as ANSI, APA, AWC, AWPA, ICC, NIST, and TPI. Validation is more complicated, requiring proof (concrete evidence) the information is correct using other trusted sources. For example, 50 years ago the Purdue Plane Structures Analyzer (PPSA) was relied on by the truss industry for verifying the correct truss member forces (axial, moment, and shear) and design analyses (TPI) when truss industry software was being updated. During the same time frame, metal-plated connections were tested in the laboratory to establish the axial stiffness and rotational behavior of the connections (model validation).
One way to explore the power of AI (or its limitations) is to ask a question when you already know the correct answer. For example, try: Has ANSI/TPI 1-2014 been updated to include new truss design loads? In doing so, the program should provide links that were used in arriving at the response. If you receive a nonsensical response, then reexamine your question and revise it accordingly.
The issue of tornado loads considered in this article provides an excellent example of the evolving nature of our code development process as well as how we can play a more substantial role in the implementation of pending code changes. Especially when considered in light of potential ethical consequences, embracing the ADD approach when interacting with a client could help build a lasting relationship while minimizing risk exposure to both the client and yourself.