• 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

California jumps ahead, allows tall wood buildings

CodeWarrior

Registered User
Joined
May 18, 2016
Messages
63
Location
USA
I would like to see a link to the specific action the Building Standards Commission took. Which state agency adopted the the code change? In California for most code provisions the Building Standard Commission does not adopt the provision but rather approves the adoption by another agency which may have jurisdiction over fire issues.

Was this a change to the fire requirements but not to the structural provisions. There is a question of what is the R factor to be used for seismic design. It is not all about static strength. This may only apply to residential occupancies since no state agency has the authority to modify the model code with respect to structural provisions for residential, office, and commercial occupancies.

The point is that the devil is in the details especially in California.
The Cal State Fire Marshal initiated the non-structural revisions:


Group I occupancies are excluded except day care I-4. So, OSHPD will not need to learn about the tall wood hospitals.

Not sure about the structural amendments. Seismic requirements are mainly decided by NEHRP, but their updates are not expected to be released until February 2021, and these are then further placed into ASCE 7, which is referenced by the IBC/CBC.
 

Mark K

Platinum Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,705
Since no state agency has the authority to modify the structural provisions for non residential occupancies, enforced by local jurisdictions, the corresponding structural provisions will not exist for these buildings until at least the next code cycle.
 

ADAguy

Sawhorse
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
5,262
Location
California
I would like to see a link to the specific action the Building Standards Commission took. Which state agency adopted the the code change? In California for most code provisions the Building Standard Commission does not adopt the provision but rather approves the adoption by another agency which may have jurisdiction over fire issues.

Was this a change to the fire requirements but not to the structural provisions. There is a question of what is the R factor to be used for seismic design. It is not all about static strength. This may only apply to residential occupancies since no state agency has the authority to modify the model code with respect to structural provisions for residential, office, and commercial occupancies.

The point is that the devil is in the details especially in California.
Heavy review by many agencies before this was approved Mark
 

Mark K

Platinum Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,705
I have not questioned the appropriateness of the fire related provisions. I was just pointing out that nothing appears to have been adopted that addressed the structural provisions related to tall wood buildings. Why was this the case. Maybe there was extensive review of the fire provisions but because everybody had blinders on nobody considered the structural issues. Prove me wrong.

Do not assume that you can design the structure of a tall wood building the same as you do the structure of a two story house.

Do not be overly impressed by the various state agencies especially when it does not have to do with their core competency.
 
Top