This is my first post, so please forgive me if I breach any rules of etiquette.
Is it possible to submit plans for a building permit under the IRC but have some engineered structural plans and still stay within the IRC? My city (Phoenix, AZ) building dept. is telling me that if I have engineered plans, they are required to be reviewed under the IBC, and that I also have to comply with the “special inspection” requirements of the IBC. The non-structural plans were submitted under the IRC.
My project is an addition to my existing house. The addition will be a new basement with 10’4″ high walls and on top will be one story with Aerated Autoclaved Concrete (AAC) block walls.
My architect told me I would have to hire an engineer to design the basement walls, so I did. When the plans were submitted to the city, the non-structural plans say on them that they are designed pursuant to the IRC. So I thought the code that applied was the IRC. But the city reviewed the structural plans under the IBC and the city is telling me that I have to have “special inspections” because the IBC requires them.
I asked to be pointed to the specific provision of the IRC that says that, and they cited IRC R301.1.3.:“When a building of otherwise conventional construction contains structural elements exceeding the limits of Section R301 or otherwise not conforming to this code, these elements shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions and shall be compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system. Engineered design in accordance with the International Building Code is permitted for all buildings and structures, and parts thereof, included in the scope of this code.”
My reading of this provision is that if I have structural elements exceeding the limits of R301, those elements have to be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice, and mine were. The next sentence talks about the design and how the design must demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions and must be compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system. I think my plans meet this requirement also. But the third sentence seems to be the one the city believes kicks me into the IBC. But my reading of the third sentence is that if the design of my engineered plans meets the requirements of the IBC, then they will be accepted under the IRC. The city seems to interpret this sentence to mean that not only the design must comply, but I must also have the special inspections that would be required under the IRC.
Am I out in left field on this one? Seems to me that if the IRC meant for such engineered plans to kick you into the IBC it would simply say: “When a building of otherwise conventional construction contains structural elements exceeding the limits of Section R301 or otherwise not conforming to this code, these elements shall be designed in accordance with the IBC and shall meet all requirements of the IBC.”
Otherwise, why would the IRC have a provision to allow for engineered plans to be accepted under the IRC?
My objection to the special inspections is that I have to pay for them, they must be done by an engineer, and they are very extensive – and I think overkill for my residential project.
Thank you for your comments.
Replies
I am a special inspector, all they mean is have an inspector that specialize in masonry units. Its really not that bad. mainly looking at mortar joint, filled rebar cells, rebar splices, ladder wire. If you have a good mason, it be real quick and cheap.
Thanks Brownbagg, but my code specifically says that my special inspections must be done by an engineer. As far as I can tell, the going rate for special inspections is about $200 per hour. This will add thousands to my project because they are calling for the following special inspections: excavation, rebar placement, concrete placement (continous), and AAC block placement and grouting of cells (continuous).
My point is that I don't think the IRC requires them. If it doesn't then I shouldn't have to pay for them. I don't mind complying with the code, but if the code doesn't require it, I don't want to volunteer for more.
thats right, I work under an engineer.I do all these.excavation, rebar placement, concrete placement (continous), and AAC block placement and grouting of cells (continuous).plus strucural, welding, bolted joints, soils
Edited 3/7/2009 11:22 pm by brownbagg
Care to take a stab at my question of whether the provision of the IRC the city is relying on really says what they say it says?
its mainly with the local government, like you said, we just dont do residental, never had, nobody ever called
Are you sure, 100%, that you are under the International Codes? What I mean is that, here in VA, we are under the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. The VAUSBC references the IRC and IBC for 95% of the content, but the final say is that VAUSBC.
I would be surprised if Phoenix just accepted the I codes at face value- politicians love to make their little changes to everything.
Assuming you get that straightened out, here's the approach I would take.
The IRC if for "One- and Two-Family Dwellings" (it says so on the cover). The IBC says this in §101.2:
"101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or
structures.
Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures shall comply with the International Residential Code."
Good luck.
Jon Blakemore
RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Hi Jon,
I'm not 100% sure of anything. :-) That's why I'm asking.
Phoenix has the Phoenix Building Construction Code, which has language identical to what you quoted. In other words, that the Phoenix Building Construction code applies to everything, except for "one and two family dwellings . . . shall comply with the International Residential Code."
That is why I thought my project would fall under the IRC. Phoenix' version of the IRC is the Phoenix Residential Code, which is basically the IRC with a few local additions.
The city does not dispute that the IRC would normally apply. They are saying that the IRC applies until you have engineered drawings. Then those parts of you plan have to comply with the IBC (Phoenix Building Construction Code). I disagree. I think the design has to comply, but that I can stay within the IRC, which does not require special inspections.
I don't know if I follow or agree with your logic. As an example, are you saying that if you have a dwelling designed as per the IRC, except for one site welded and bolt steel moment frame, you would be exempt from special inspections? That is what I get if I extrapolate your argument.
Hi McMark,
Yes, in your example I would still be in the IRC IF my one site welded and steel moment frame was "designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice." IRC, R301.1.3). AND as long as the extent of the design merely demonstrates compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions, and as long as the designis compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system. (IRC, R301.1.3)
My argument is that I would still be in the IRC, which does not have mandatory special inspections. I would not care if the city wants an "extra" inspection or even if they want to call it a "special inspection" because as I understand the IRC I am not required to hire an engineer and pay for that inspection myself. I am perfectly OK with any special inspections the city wants to conduct.
My point is that under the IRC they are not required and the owner is not required to pay for them and hire an engineer to conduct them, as is the requirement for the IBC.
I'm thinking you're not going to win. Someone, somewhere said something about "fighting city hall". Good luck though.
McMark,
I want to try a second response to your comment, as I'm seeing that I'm not conveying my position very well.
It's not about whether I am exempt from special inspections so much as which code do I have to comply with, and what does that code require?
My contention is that you can have a single family dwelling fall under the IRC and still have some engineered structural plans that must be designed correctly but that you are still in the IRC. If I am still in the IRC, then I don't think I have to comply with the special inspection provisions of the IBC.
Seems to me that if the IRC meant for that to be the case, it would state it clearly.
Believe me, I really appreciate yours and anyone's comments, as I am still open to someone showing me where my thinking is off.
re: Special Inspections; I take it that Phoenix has an amendment to the IBC that overules the exception to R3 structures? If it's a house that meets R3 definitions the special inspections aren't required (defined by an excpetion) by the 2006 IBC. If this is a sinle or family home (duplex too) you're in group R-3.
wait lemme find it.... 1704.1 exception #3.
Unless otherwise required by the building official, special inspections are not required for occupancies in Group R-3 as ....
group U is included too. The inspections are in process inspections and not inspections done at the completion of work like you'd normally expect a BI to do.
Hi John7g,
Phoenix has deleted the language that excepts R-3 occupancies. The only two exceptions in Phoenix are for 1)"work of a minor nature or as warranted by conditions in the jurisdiction as approved by the building official." and 2) "Special inspections are not required for building components unless the design involves the practice of professional engineering or architecture, as defined by applicable state statutes and regulations governing the professional registration and certification of engineers or architects."
The irony here is that my engineer has already said, in writing, that he has no objection if the city wants to waive the special inspection requirement.
How convenient of them to delete that section. It's on the follwoing page, you sure you didn't stop reading too soon?
No, it isn't there. I had seen that exception in the IBC, but when I looked at the Phoenix version it isn't there.
But again, I don't think I have to comply with the IBC anyway, since my project falls within the IRC.
The short version:
The codes are basically an engineering document on how to do the normal things encountered in 99% of all residential design and construction situations.
The requirement for design by professional engineers is there to require engineering of nonstandard elements of a facility that would not normally be covered under the standards of a "building code".
The engineering is done because the work does not fall into the 99% not covered in the codes, or normally constructed. Thus it is thought to be outside the normal run of work, (and experience of the contractor, and the Building Inspectors). Thus it requires a special inspection, which must be sealed and submitted by a professional engineer, to assure that it meets the requirements of the engineered design.
The engineer may in fact come out and do the inspection. Particularly, if they feel the work is highly critical or unique. Typically, they delegate this work to a paraprofessional, who has specialized training in the area of inspection, and may occaisionally do an inspection.
Many juristictions have a list of qualified, Special Inspection Entities, that you can hire to perform special inspections.
some of the special inspection on masonry it:
1) sand mortar mix to correct propostion
2) head joints
3) ladder wire
4) plumb and joint thicknessall this have to be look at in progress and not after the job
Hi Jigs-n-fixtures,
I completely understand the rationale behind special inspections.
The question here is which code applies? If the IRC applies, does it require special inspections? (See my first, and later posts)
I say it doesn't. The city says it does, but the provision of the code they are relying on, IRC R301.1.3, does not say that special inspections under the IBC are required, it simply says you must have engineered design.
I never realized a basement was such an unusual feature that it required a special inspection.
If you were in Southern California a residential basement would be a rareity, Phoenix I don't know.
Maybe it is?
Joe H
The rational is that if it takes an Engineer's seal to approve it for construction, it takes an Engineers seal on the Inspection of it.
I include it as a requirement in the detail notes of anything I design.
Not sure what the code says.
Since, the courts and ambulance chasers have gotten involved in such things, and decided that Engineers are responsible for the execution of their designs, (whether there is any direct compensation or not). I have decided it is prudent to include notes requiring inspection by myself or a second party inspector.
The codes would be lots easier to understand if they all printed code on the left, and the commentary on the right, like the ACI code books do.
any developpments since the weekend?
Not yet. I have requested a meeting with the supervisor of the guy who told me I have to comply with the IBC. I'll let you know what happens.
I met with the supervisor of the structual reviewer and we discussed the code for an hour or so. He was a bit cocky in that he said the city can do whatever it wants. He also was unable to point me to the provision of the code that supported his position.
When I left I knew I had to decide whether I wanted to pursue this fight, so I gave the Administrative provisions of the Phoenix Code one more read. And I found the provision that allows the city to call for special inspections even when the IRC doesn't.
109.5 Other Inspections - In addition to the inspections specified above, the building official may require other inspections of any construction work to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this code and other laws and ordinances enforced by the Development Services Department.
So I'm moving on - and I'll have special inspections. :-)
Thanks for your input.
thanks for the update. irritating that he didn't know the code that he enforeces though.
You can't fight city hall. But like other posters have asked, will you be able to use a "Special Inspector", versus an (the ) engineer? I think you probably will, and they are much cheaper and faster. It really isn't that big of a deal.
really the special inspector is the engineer or it will proberly be a tech working under his engineer stamp
Yes as Brownbagg said, the Phoenix Code requires that I hire an engineer to be the special inspector. From my discussions with the city they don't seem to care if the engineer delegates it to someone else, since the engineer is ultimately the one signing off on it. In fact, my impression was that they really don't care if the engineer actually inspects anything, as long as he signs off on the special inspection report.
And you can fight city hall, but it doesn't do any good if they have written the rules to make sure they always win! :-)
You're right, the SI inspects to make sure the structure is built as per the engineering specification. The first thing they do is look at the structurals and the engineering notes to look for (for instance) bolt torques, weld sizes and types, rebar spacing, etc. So all their inspections are carried out under your, or possibly their, engineers stamp.
Phoenix does it the same as many other areas
Reat this posting:
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=117374.11
All I'm saying is proceed with caution.
Unfortunately, the BI has the last word on inspections, unless his boss overides.
Everything I build has to have signed and stamped plans but I've never had to have a "special" inspection, it's all done by the BI who looks at the plans.
He checks the excavation, the steel placement, the ties, the blocks and cavity fills, etc., as we go.
I guess I'm considered competent to follow the plans, or I wouldn't hold my license and our BI's are considered competent to read the plans and determine if I followed the plans properly or they wouldn't have a job.
Thanks for the heads up Matt!