1. 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 clicking here: Upgrades
    Dismiss Notice

code vs. maufacturers instructions

Discussion in 'Residential Foundation Codes' started by codeworks, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    138
    Any standards referenced by the code your jurisdiction has adopted have gone through the code official adoption process. Any other reference standards are not a concern of the building department in it's enforcement activities.

    There have been a number of other cases where less than desirable provisions have remained on the books because of the delays in the code adoption cycle. But the only way to address this problem is to amend the adopted code at the state or local level. A judge can force the CSST industry to change their behavior but as long as the building code was legally adopted and isn't illegal he cannot mandate a change in the building code.

    Here again we have to satisfy the legal constraints while trying to protect public safety. You can ignore the legal constraints and probably get away with it unless somebody brings legal action, but is this right? I think part of the difference is a difficulty in accepting the limits on what the building codes can accomplish.
     
  2. brudgers

    brudgers Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Alternative means and methods - though often and for some items, a test report is more appropriate for plan review.
     
  3. brudgers

    brudgers Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Not a legal issue, alternative means and methods are the basis for approving use of such common items as Simpson anchors, fasteners, clips, epoxies, et cetera et cetera.
     
  4. brudgers

    brudgers Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    When a code is adopted, everything incorporated by reference is adopted as well.
     
  5. mtlogcabin

    mtlogcabin Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,472
    Likes Received:
    886
    That would include the manufactures installation instructions IMHO
     
  6. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    138
    There appears to be come confusion regarding the use of alternate materials, design and methods of construction. Reference IBC Section 104.11 and IRC Section R104.11.

    Alternate means and methods can be used to allow the use of something that the applicant wishes to do but it cannot be used to require the applicant to do something in addition to what is in the code that he does not wish to do.

    To properly apply alternate means and methods the building official should review the proposal and should formally indicate his approval. This is something that is not normally done with regards to manufacturers instructions and even if it were done would require that the same manufacturer’s instructions used during installation be the same as those reviewed by the building official.

    It is clear in the case law that the existance of an approved building permit does not excuse the permit holder from the need to comply with the code. Thus the approval by the building official would have to explicitly address the use of the product or material as an alternate means of compliance.

    While everything incorporated by reference in the adopted code is adopted this doesn’t mean that what was adopted was legal. If requiring blanket compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions is not legal the fact that it was required in a number of reference standards does not make it legitimate. The contents of reference standards are subject to the same legal constraints that apply to the adopted regulations. There is at least one reference standard that attempts to define when the Owner must pay for some of the Contractor’s errors. I would argue that this is illegal for several reasons.
     
  7. Min&Max

    Min&Max Silver Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    6
    I would be very reluctant to have something installed contrary to the manufacturers instructions. You are effectively voiding any warranty the contractor/consumer may have had through the manufacturer. In my opinion, typically the manufacturers instructions are going to supercede code requirements.
     
  8. brudgers

    brudgers Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Warranties are not a building code issue and Owners should discuss their specifics with their attorney.
     
  9. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    138
    brrudgers point speaks to what I believe is a key point of disagreement. There are limits on what the code can deal with.

    I also would be reluctant to go against the manufacturers instructions but if it does not impact life safety or other legitimate code purpose should it not be my choice. Why shoud a manufacturer's instruction aimed at making the installation look good be a code issue?
     
  10. mmmarvel

    mmmarvel Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    28
    I had a site (can't remember the job anymore, memory getting foggy) - the contractor HAD read the manf instructions and he was VERY happy to show off his new $500 staplers to me. As I recall he had bought two of them, it was a quirky requirement and I can't say that I would have caught it, but since he had laid out the money for them he was darn sure that I was going to notice and note them.
     
  11. steveray

    steveray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    932
    IT SEEMS MOST OF THE MANUFACTURERS CALL FOR THIS NOW......sorry... forgot about caps.....or the plastic capped fasteners....answer I hear the most is.."the siding will hold it on"...Jeez! sorry!...What was I thinking for trying to make you follow the instructions?
     
  12. gbhammer

    gbhammer Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    5
    Oh I needed to LOL
     
  13. mark handler

    mark handler Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,324
    Likes Received:
    766
    2010 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE

    R102.4 Referenced codes and standards.

    Exception: Where enforcement of a code provision would violate the conditions of the listing of the equipment or appliance, the conditions of the listing and manufacturer's instructions shall apply.
     
  14. pete_t

    pete_t Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark

    I don't believe R102.4 is adopted. See the Matrix Adoption Table.
     
  15. mark handler

    mark handler Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,324
    Likes Received:
    766
    Correct, unless locally adopted....
     
  16. peach

    peach Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    2
    you don't think that already happens? As long as manufacturers can be the proponent of code changes, it'll always happen. Manufacturer's instructions often times provide additional requirements beyond the Code minimum
     

Share This Page