The focus on the IBC is "buildings" as the title implies. Nonbuilding structures are the red headed step child forced upon the IBC.The problem with this argument, however, is that nearly all the codes and standards we use mention "buildings" generally, including AISC 360 and even ASCE 7. I think you have to be more liberal with your definition of "building."
The petroleum refining and petrochemical industries have attempted to address the dearth of industry-wide standards over the years, with (IMO) little success. The so-called Process Industry Practice (PIP) standards are, for the structural discipline at least, quite reminiscent of something that has been partially finished, time permitting. These have been more an attempt to coalesce various operating and EPC company legacy documents, than any effort to incorporate original research or building and material design code provisions. They end up a mish-mash of provisions that probably cause more trouble than they're worth.
Meanwhile, design engineers in this corner of the village don't pay attention to "newfangled" developments, even with AISC or ACI, and keep doing things the same way they've always done them. Some will even tell you, point-blank, that the client (read "owner") is responsible to tell you what to do, and if he wants to use the 1989 AISC ASD provisions - even though they're no longer recognized by current building codes - then by golly that's what we'll do!
You can imagine the fun as we try to bring together "ancient" design provisions with modern seismic detailing requirements, for example.
The "LRFD wars" continue to leave casualties, like unexploded bombs years after hostilities have ceased.