Fire proofing joist hanger?

[brudgers]

Is it absolutelly necessary to become a total a$$ on most threads? You actually often have valid points, and I sense that you can articulate them, but inevitably you feel the need to attack and insult. What's your problem? Did you always feel the need to kick sand in the box? Chill out sport.......

There are legitimate concerns regarding code enforcement, and there are illegitimate concerns.

If you want to turn a blind eye to the encouragement of unethical behavior in code enforcement, that is your choice.

You will be at least be liked, if not respected for it.

 

[permitguy]

If you want to turn a blind eye to the encouragement of unethical behavior in code enforcement, that is your choice.

If I thought you knew anything of ethics, I might be insulted by that.

Apparently Milton forgot to teach you about your responsibilities in this business beyond the blue book. You probably don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm sure you have an insult to throw at me on the matter.

 

[texasbo]

Brudgers said:

"There are legitimate concerns regarding code enforcement, and there are illegitimate concerns.

If you want to turn a blind eye to the encouragement of unethical behavior in code enforcement, that is your choice.

You will be at least be liked, if not respected for it. "

The proper enforcement of codes and therefore protecting my employer from unnecessary lawsuits is a very legitimate concern, and is a concept that even someone with little intelligence could understand.

I am not surprised that you have trouble with it.

I am disturbed, however, that you consistently lobby for code officials to make decisions that are not in the best interest of the protection of the public nor protection from litigation.

The design professionals we work with are universally better than that; I'm glad we only have to deal with you on a chat forum.

 

[mtlogcabin]

New twist. I ran this by the a former plans examiner and he pointed out the following.

714.2.1 Individual protection.

Columns, girders, trusses, beams, lintels or other structural members that are required to have a fire-resistance rating and that support more than two floors or one floor and roof, or support a load-bearing wall or a nonload-bearing wall more than two stories high, shall be individually protected on all sides for the full length with materials having the required fire-resistance rating.(Beams support one floor only therefore do not have to be fully encased) Other structural members required to have a fire-resistance rating shall be protected by individual encasement, by a membrane or ceiling protection as specified in Section 711 ( the one-hour floor/ceiling assembly provides the required protection for the beam, hangers and I-joist), or by a combination of both. Columns shall also comply with Section 714.2.2.

So my gut reaction that this was okay has been backed up with the code.

Now the delima, brudgers I want your opinion from the design side, Do I tell the Arch the fire proofing of the beam is not required by code or let the original design stand and just answer the original question about the fire proofing of the joist hangers. I like the idea of the extra protection on the beam and going above the code but I also understand the importance of bringing a job in within budget and trying to save cost. Normally I do not question an Arch who specs designs above code minimums but this is a big ticket item.

 

[brudgers]

The proper enforcement of codes and therefore protecting my employer from unnecessary lawsuits

Proper enforcement of the code may thereby protect your employer from lawsuits.

But it does not logically follow that protecting your employer from lawsuits is part of proper code enforcement.

Indeed, considering your employer's exposure to lawsuits may be a breech of a code official's responsibility.

Of course, placing one's career ahead of code enforcement as advocated by some person's in this thread is obviously the next step down the slippery slope of logic twisted by rationalizations of self-interest, i.e. protecting my career protects my employer from lawsuits which protects the public.

However, I am hardly surprised by your position on the matter having become familiar with your "character."

 

[brudgers]

Now the delima, brudgers I want your opinion from the design side, Do I tell the Arch the fire proofing of the beam is not required by code or let the original design stand and just answer the original question about the fire proofing of the joist hangers. I like the idea of the extra protection on the beam and going above the code but I also understand the importance of bringing a job in within budget and trying to save cost. Normally I do not question an Arch who specs designs above code minimums but this is a big ticket item.

Since you do not know all the implications of design - i.e. there may be other reasons for protecting the beam, IMO it is not proper to tell the architect "it is not required."

On the other hand, "I'm not sure it is applicable, but have you looked at 714.2?" when discussing the situation directly with the architect (not via the contractor) is appropriate. Let them make the decision.

 

[Mark K]

When the building official tells the Owner or Contractor that something the design professional specified was not needed it can undermine the Owner's opinion of the design professional. Sure the DP may have inadvertently specified something that was not required but it is possible that he did it intentionally. I have seen situations where the inspector said something wasn't necessary where the inspector didn't know what he was talking about.

 

[texasbo]

But it does not logically follow that protecting your employer from lawsuits is part of proper code enforcement.

Nobody has said that it does. What was said is that properly enforcing the code helps to avoid lawsuits, and that improper enforcement leads to career loss. Two very intuitive and easy to understand concepts. You're just too ignorant to know the difference.

But then again, strangely enough, you're not in that career anymore anyway. Can't imagine why...

And it's always fun to twist quotes to fit whatever ridiculous point you're trying to make, isn't it?

 

[Jobsaver]

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?4628-Why-can-t-all-forums-...

 

[fatboy]

Yeah, sometimes it don't work out the way you hoped..........some folks have a problem playing nice.

 

[brudgers]

But then again, strangely enough, you're not in that career anymore anyway. Can't imagine why...

I didn't play nice and actually enforced the code.

It was not politically acceptable.

Two Senior Plans Examiner positions were cut to pay for police cars in the wake of the Iraq invasion.

I was the least senior Senior Plans Examiner.

 

[AegisFPE]

the one-hour floor/ceiling assembly provides the required protection for the beam, hangers and I-joist

The challenge with this supposition, is that the testing of a floor/ceiling assembly is through the entire assembly, not to a member within the assembly.It could be said that the joists are part of the 1-hour assembly, but it is the entire assembly itself that is rated to 1-hour. Therefore, if the subject beam required to be protected with 1-hour protection were sitting on the floor above the floor/ceiling assembly, then it could be said to be separated from the space below by 1-hour protection.

However, where the member is buried within the interstitial space of the assembly, the only thing separating the structural member is the ceiling membrane, which may not afford the prescribed 1-hour protection. Further, if not individually protected, then additional scrutiny of the wall membranes and protection of head-of-wall penetrations into the interstitial space of the floor/ceiling assembly could also be considered.

 

[jannypan]

thinking outloud without benefit of code article.

5A construction requires rated floor / ceiling assembly of 1 hour

rated construction assemblies require SUPPORT to match assembly supported,

hanger supporting assembly should be inside a listed assembly (listing support method as hangers)