• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Am I missing something?

JBI

Registered User
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
2,788
Location
The Empire State
From the 2012 IRC (same in the 2009 and 2006...)

R406.2 Concrete and masonry foundation waterproofing.

In areas where a high water table or other severe soil-water conditions are known to exist, exterior foundation walls that retain earth and enclose interior spaces and floors below grade shall be waterproofed from the top of the footing to the finished grade. Walls shall be waterproofed in accordance with one of the following:

1. Two-ply hot-mopped felts.2. Fifty-five-pound (25 kg) roll roofing.3. Six-mil (0.15 mm) polyvinyl chloride.4. Six-mil (0.15 mm) polyethylene.5. Forty-mil (1 mm) polymer-modified asphalt.6. Sixty-mil (1.5 mm) flexible polymer cement.7. One-eighth-inch (3 mm) cement-based, fiber-reinforced, waterproof coating.8. Sixty-mil (0.22 mm) solvent-free liquid-applied synthetic rubber.

My question is in regard to the underlined items. A 'mil' is a unit of measure equal to 1/1000 of an inch, and numbers in parentheses (generally) are metric equivalents of our non-metric measurements.

Why is item 6 mathematically consistent with other listed options, but item 8 is not? Am I missing something?
 
That was my knee-jerk reaction Mac. Not only a consistent 'mistake' in every ICC code cycle, but NYS has the exact same 'mistake' in ours as well...
 
Figure R406.2 in the 2006 IRC Commentary, item #8: 8.6 mil solvent-free-liquid-applied synthetic rubber.

It seems like the information is correct in figure R406.2, but was transferred incorrectly to the body of the code.
 
And we have a winner! Kudos 31 Street Rod, nice find. (Same figure detail in the 2012 IRC w/Commentary BTW).

Still doesn't explain an unnoticed typo for 3 code cycles.

In multiple jurisdictions. :-/
 
Received a reply from ICC (two actually, but the first basically said 'that's what the code says, we can't change it'), it was a transcription error from the original proposal. Errata to be published.
 
Top