• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Braced Wall Line 2009 IRC, R602.10

Uncle Bob

Uncle Bob

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
1,409
Location
Texas
Has anyone attended a course or seminar on the changes from the 2006 IRC to the 2009 IRC, Section R602.10 Wall Bracing?

It's gone from 6 pages to 25 pages. How are Plan Reviewers and Inspectors suppose to keep up with all these changes?

Actually, I know the answer to that; they aren't. There is no way inspectors across the country can possibly keep up with all the code changes and additional new codes every three years.

Our governments are adopting new codes without having adequate numbers of Inspectors who have even seen a copy of the book until after the adoption.

This is getting down right silly,

Uncle Bob
 
I have always argued that the 3 year cycle is entirely too frequent. A 6 year cycle would be much more appropriate, and cities could adopt the supplements if they felt compelled to do so. But you sell more books with a 3 year cycle. I am moving my city to a six year cycle, and if I feel there are significant changes in between, I'll adopt them by amendment. As the ICC has moved away from a code developed by building professionals, to one that is written more by those who have something to gain by peddling more of their product, you will see this type of thing increase exponentially.

The braced wall provisions will virtually ensure that bracing will have to be addressed at plan review (since we already do a structural plan review, including wall bracing, it's no problem for us). The days of cities relying entirely on inspectors to ensure code compliance in the field are quickly coming to an end.

The City of Ft Worth did a pretty good job of summarizing the changes along with graphics. I'm sure you can get a copy from them, but if not, contact me, and I'll have a pdf emailed to you.

And yes, it passed silly a long time ago.
 
texasbo,

I agree that a three year cycle for big changes is to often. Too bad there isn't a way to get big changes on a 6 years or whatever cycle with small supplement changes every two years or so to pick up new technology or something.

UB,

But you know a city doesn't want you to spend time and money training staff for a code that the council might not adopt. And after all, you have ten days after the council adoption to train before the code goes into effect. That should be plenty of time to order your new books (after of course the 30 day finance department review to see if you really need them), and then train all the inspectors up on the new code (cause you know anybody could really do this job)(and do all the inspectors really need the new books, couldn't you just tell them what the changes are and have them use the old ones?) and do all the inspections in the meanwhile. :)

Besides a 6 year code cycle would see a drop in the total number of code books sold.
 
I agree with texasbo.

We went from 1986 CABO to 1998 IOTFDC to 2006 IRC, and 1987 BOCA to 1999 BOCA to 2006 I-codes. Glad we did. I do not support the 3-year cycle. Other than special interest groups there is almost no logical reason. 5 to 10 would be plenty.
 
There are probably only a couple significant changes in any code edition. Half of the rest are moving verbiage from one section to another, so nobody can find it, and the other half are verbal tweaks that muddy the water as often as not.
 
UB: Yes I did attend a class offered by two local engineers. Dealt with the bullet issues regrading these new sections.

The issue of every three years for new code books and a complete over haul has to deal with money. Plain and simple. I have some thoughts on this issue and it could work very easily, but that would not fit the ICC business plan. They would have to put the cow on a diet.
 
Share your concerns about the costs. Part of the problem with a longer code cycle is that there are a number of provisions that are broken and the longer cycle would make it that much harder to fix them.
 
One of the plan reviewers I work with wrote a lot of the braced wall section and I still don't understand it! I took the county training seminar and I can see where this will simplify things somewhat, but it will be hard to inspect unless there is a lot of information and red inc on the plans. Why can't we just mandate continuous sheathing for everything? Throw in some hold down straps and call it good. We don't even inspect nailing patterns. Do you?? Our plan reviewers are good about circling stuff and making notes on the plans for the inspector. It really helps.
 
To insure we're on the same page during the inspection; the engineer's notes should have the type of bracing used; or the builder should specify the type of bracing, by code section on the plans.

Uncle Bob
 
If you are dealing with the IRC then it is not likely that there is an engineer involved.

The permit application should be clear enough that the inspector should not have to do a lot of code interpretation.
 
This will have to be on the plan. If the builder or home owner can't figure it out they will need help, professional help. I allowed the first 90 days to pass for everyone to get up to speed. Now the plan has to indicated the method and details of compliance. In that way the bracing is is reviewed at plan submission and approved. The approved plan must be on site at time of inspection. It is not possible to try and figure out if the structure complies in the field without an approved design to start.

Daddy-o Continuous sheathing does not work in all cases. Look closely at the sections. Also look at portal framing. What every you thought you knew about wind bracing has been tossed out the window with the bath water.

As Texasbo stated it has become a situation of beyond silly.

The problem is that no one has challenged the engineers that have put this into place. Go back and look at the anchor bolt requirement and spacing that got in on the 06 code.
 
RJJ,

I just wish we could go back to CSWSP. Five years ago the houses we built when I was a carpenter were all continuous sheathing because that was all we knew. The house I live in is 260+/- years old and gets by just fine with angle bracing and balloon framing. I know continuous sheathing does not always meet the current code standard but that doesn't mean that it isn't OK. Sorry...babbling. I do agree that the codes are getting out of hand with all of the changes. I don't believe that the houses I built 5-10 years ago are any less safe than the ones built today. On the contrary, I would argue the opposite.
 
The more detailed the construction HAS to be (because of curent code requirements), the more the contractors and inspectors will miss during construction. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it is OK to miss a connector, or a couple of nails. I am saying that they will be missed, because it is too hard to get them all. What ever happened to the KISS method? As my 5th grade teacher taught us... Keep It Simple, Stupid!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top