• 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.

Existing Building

Builder Bob

Builder Bob

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
2,421
Location
Sunny SC - Coastal (not Charleston or Myrtle Beach
DSCN1332.jpg


This is a training aide for us to discuss potential code violations.

I am aware of several potential building and fire violations with this picture. this should help newbie’s learn from the old foxes........

A couple of request along the way ++++

1.) Cite edition of code and general code section

2.) Explantion of code violation

ALSO, Please feel free to add Mechanical, Electrical, Fuel Gas, or any other codes that may be applicable.

This is an experiment to see what changes may have occured in Code from the 2000 IBC/IFC to the 2012 IBC/IFC
 
Don't have 2012, not going to mess with 2000. Comments based on 2009

Window adjacent to stair required to have safety glazing per 2406.4 #10.

Lower landing does not appear to have a length equal to width of stairway, 1009.5

Depending on occupancy, solid risers may be required, 1009.4.5

Based on what I can tell fom the photo, interior stais of this building would not need to be enclosed, therefore opening protection for windows adjacent to this stair would not need to be protected. However, just to cover myself, reference 1026.6; opening protection MAY be required.

I'm sure I missed the biggest stuff, but at least I went first.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Occupancy and construction type aside, I'd like some protection from vehicle damage for the steel stairs support posts.

BCNYS 2010: 1012.5 Handrail extensions not provided

Chapt 32 "Encroachments into Public Right of Way - looks close,might apply
 
I must be missing something. Normally when I can't see a photo because of our server software, I can still see the little red box. Not this time. And I wanted to play too. :(
 
Incorrect application of the Building Code...requirements for new construction do not apply to existing construction unless there are alterations.
 
* * * *

I'm with you Papio!.....I cannot see the photo either......Help us out

Builder Bob, ...can you cut & paste the pic. on to this topic thread?

# # # #
 
brudgers said:
Incorrect application of the Building Code...requirements for new construction do not apply to existing construction unless there are alterations.
Click to expand...
Correct but play along. Pretend it is a new building and you are doing a final inspection
 
So pretend I'm doing a final, huh? Be careful what you ask for:

The accent stripe is "Desert Tan", instead of the "Desert Sand" that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, and the shrubbery is 3" shorter than the minimum height specified in our landscaping ordinance. The mechanical equipment is not screened from view, nor is the exposed lighting element shielded, which is a vipolation because it obviously exceeds 60 watts.

And I'm not sure if the guard would support 3 drunk college kids, at 3:15 am.
 
mtlogcabin said:
Correct but play along. Pretend it is a new building and you are doing a final inspection
Click to expand...
Well, in that case the contractor would not get retainage because it would not be per my design.
 
texasbo said:
So pretend I'm doing a final, huh? Be careful what you ask for:The accent stripe is "Desert Tan", instead of the "Desert Sand" that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, and the shrubbery is 3" shorter than the minimum height specified in our landscaping ordinance. The mechanical equipment is not screened from view, nor is the exposed lighting element shielded, which is a vipolation because it obviously exceeds 60 watts.

And I'm not sure if the guard would support 3 drunk college kids, at 3:15 am.
Click to expand...
The shrubbery quote reminds of several lines in a famous Monty Python movie about Knights who say Ca-knee, cocanuts, and the speed that swallows fly.

Oh, I'm sorry, this is about code violations. I guess I'm not seeing it.
 
"ni", and we have a sub-forum for that. The term "shrubbery", was, however, intentional.
 
Oldfieldguy said:
The shrubbery quote reminds of several lines in a famous Monty Python movie about Knights who say Ca-knee, cocanuts, and the speed that swallows fly.Oh, I'm sorry, this is about code violations. I guess I'm not seeing it.
Click to expand...
Can we get this reposted to the Palaearctic-African Songbird Migration forum? I think we are over-due for a good shrubbery post/thread.
 
2009 IBC 1012.6: Lower handrail doesn't extend a tread distance past the lowest riser.

2009 IBC 1012.6: Top handrail doesn't level off at top riser and extend 12".

2009 IBC 1008.1.6: Upper door swing encroaches on required landing (min landing is 44", door may not reduce more than half the minimum, i.e. leaving 22" clear, which doesn't appear to be available).

(an old code used to prohibit less than 3 risers, maybe '95 UBC?): Single riser from bottom landing to walk not allowed.

Zoning: If the paving is a private drive then no issue of projections into setback.

2009 IBC 1009.4.5, Exception 1 Risers must be solid unless designed to prohibit passage of a 4" sphere.

2009 IBC 1009.7, A flight of stairs shall not rise greater than 12' between landings. If these risers are more than 7.2", vertical limit is exceeded (and also 1009.4.2, maximum riser 7").
 
Last edited:
Builder Bob said:
DSCN1332.jpg
This is a training aide for us to discuss potential code violations.

I am aware of several potential building and fire violations with this picture. this should help newbie’s learn from the old foxes........

A couple of request along the way ++++

1.) Cite edition of code and general code section

2.) Explantion of code violation

ALSO, Please feel free to add Mechanical, Electrical, Fuel Gas, or any other codes that may be applicable.

This is an experiment to see what changes may have occured in Code from the 2000 IBC/IFC to the 2012 IBC/IFC
Click to expand...
2009 IBC - MOE

SECTION 1013 GUARDS

1013.1 Where required. Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces, including mezzanines, equipment platforms, stairs, ramps and landings that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the floor or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally to the edge of the open side. Guards shall be adequate in strength and attachment in accordance with Section 1607.7.

1013.2 Height. Required guards shall be not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high, measured vertically above the adjacent walking surfaces, adjacent fixed seating or the line connecting the leading edges of the treads.

2009 IBC - Handrails

1012.4 Continuity. Handrail gripping surfaces shall be continuous, without interruption by newel posts or other obstructions.
 
In addition to what others have posted, for those in parts of the country with colder temperatures, what about the stairs being designed so that water will not accumulate? It's difficult to tell in the photo where or not this requirement has been met or if it even applies. (IBC 2009, 1009.6.2)

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it or not, but what about solid risers? (IBC 2009 1009.4.5) It does not appear that this stair would meet the provisions for one of the exceptions.

It looks like they've combined the guard with the handrail, big no-no. (IBC 2009 1013.2, 1012.2, 1012.4)

It's difficult to tell if the landing at the bottom of the stairs is deep enough. (IBC 2009 1009.5)
 
texasbo said:
So pretend I'm doing a final, huh? Be careful what you ask for:The accent stripe is "Desert Tan", instead of the "Desert Sand" that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, and the shrubbery is 3" shorter than the minimum height specified in our landscaping ordinance. The mechanical equipment is not screened from view, nor is the exposed lighting element shielded, which is a vipolation because it obviously exceeds 60 watts.

And I'm not sure if the guard would support 3 drunk college kids, at 3:15 am.
Click to expand...
You forgot to screen the a/c units. :P
 
Codegeek said:
You forgot to screen the a/c units. :P
Click to expand...
It's in the quote in your post above. I also metioned the landing and risers.

I agree about the handrail/guard. You've either got a handrail that's too high, or a guard that's too low, don't you?
 
It appears as if someone has left a trip hazard on the fourth stair from the top.

2009 IBC 1003.4 'Walking surfaces... (need to) be securely attached.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top