• 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.

Insulating an existing house

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,723
Location
Not where I really want to be
Looking to see how others tackle this in existing houses.

Here is the hypothetical example:

Existing home almost completely gutted on the inside. Most exterior walls gutted down to the studs along with all ceilings. Insulation is added to the attic from below as the attic is walk up with flooring, batt insulation is added where walls were gutted and blown in is added where not.

A portion of a bump out over a crawlspace has the floor completely reframed.

The entire home has all new plumbing, electrical and heating.

The basement and crawlspace walls are not insulated or part of the thermal envelope.

Would you have them insulate the floor(unfinished basement) as required under the energy code of the IRC?

Would they be required under the IRC to insulate it?
 
yes... it's not a level 2 alteration. They may not be able to insulate to today's level if they left the existing exterior frame, but they need to insulate to the best they can.. run into this all the time.
 
With the recent advent of all kinds of new codes, Fire Sprinklers, Geologic, Energy, and Green, local AHJs here are adopting "Rebuild" vs. "Remodel" ordinances, so many architects and builders were qualifying as remodels to avoid the new codes that Santa Clara County went to their Board of Supervisors and had the old ordinance defining the difference changed when I was in the middle of the process, fortunately I was able to get the Head Plan Checker to grandfather me in under the old ordinance, Here is Santa Clara County's new definition to get guys like me who don't like their new radical left-wing ordinances.
 
NY ch 11 is way different that the 009 IRC.. But in muddling through the online IRC I believe the values must comply. NY used to have a section that said "R-value need not comply, provided the entire cavity is filled with insulation", which has since been removed.

I do not see any such wording in the IRC. I believe just as you would go to the plumbing section for new plumbing, the electrical section for new electric.. so would you go to the energy efficiency chapter for new insulation.

True, only a certain amount of insulation will fit in an existing cavity. However, you can get more R-value (possible comply) with spray foam. You can also fir down or put a layer of rigid on the inside or outside walls. If not possible, the very premise of a variance is to allow work where it is not practical to comply with the code.
 
Tim said:
However, you can get more R-value (possible comply) with spray foam. You can also fir down or put a layer of rigid on the inside or outside walls.
Click to expand...
Watchout, you will incur the wrath of our firefighter friends who want to ban all styrofoam because it kills firefighters, as well as the environmental crowd who want it banned because it kills fish and birds.View attachment 407

View attachment 407

/monthly_2010_09/foam1.jpg.08926f62228cbac9f2dd4da9fcf481d7.jpg
 
fatboy said:
I look at it the same as peach........do the best you can do.
Click to expand...
Closed cel spray foam at ~R-6 per inch.. would comply with prescriptive in most situations.. and would be the best I could do.

Not knocking your positions, but I would say that there are not many scenarios where you couldn't meet prescriptive values. I believe (reading between the lines) that you both are saying you would not require a high-R-value-per-inch insulation to meet the code requirements, instead allowing fiberglass or cellulose. I think I would be willing to go that route on a small remodel/alteration where the area exposed is relatively minor compared to the entire sf of the house.. although I do not think the code allows it.

Heck, I had a REScheck on a new home pass with R-19 in the entire 2nd floor ceiling, so you never know.

In this situation, where the entire building is being redone.. why didn't they figure the method/cost of compliance into the cost of the remodel?
 
I feel a large lack of enthusiasm for chasing this code item. Fill the cavity and be done with it. It isn't a safety issue, it isn't a workmanship issue. It is hardly even an energy issue, heck, the owners spend 6 months of the year driving around the country in an RV for crips sake. Energy saved by upgrading residential buildings is a tiny fraction and does not merit the energy used to chase it around. JMHO.
 
Yankee said:
I feel a large lack of enthusiasm for chasing this code item. Fill the cavity and be done with it. It isn't a safety issue, it isn't a workmanship issue. It is hardly even an energy issue, heck, the owners spend 6 months of the year driving around the country in an RV for crips sake. Energy saved by upgrading residential buildings is a tiny fraction and does not merit the energy used to chase it around.
Click to expand...
Yankee:

Truer words were never spoken, all this obsessive/compulsive energy efficiency does more harm than good, look at this ordinary wall with a standard 20 minute WRB in a 50 year-old tract home, it has never leaked or rotted, but blow insulation into that wall and you've got a soggy/moldy mess rotting the structure out. If you really want to see something stupid, and done with tax energy efficiency money, drilling 2" holes right through the WRB to guarantee the house will rot and develop mold problems, to top it off they are using old dirty recycled formaldehyde-laden newsprint.
 
So many things can be classified as non-safety or non-workmanship items. I personally don't understand why energy efficiency is discounted as unimportant.

R-value and weather resistance are apples and oranges. WRB has nothing to do with energy efficiency.
 
TimNY said:
So many things can be classified as non-safety or non-workmanship items. I personally don't understand why energy efficiency is discounted as unimportant.R-value and weather resistance are apples and oranges. WRB has nothing to do with energy efficiency.
Click to expand...
Yup that's right, WRB is an important element.
 
Whether or not we agree with the codes we enforce or not, we need to be consistent in our application of the codes. Nothing is more frustrating to contractors and there is no bigger complaint than inconsistency between code officials and jurisdictions. Nothing takes away from our profession like allowing subjectivity where there is none which makes our decisions inconsistent. If there is a standard, a requirement, a code, we must follow it. Every day I personally approve installations that I don't like nor would I have done the work like I see it. It is however code compliant so I approve and move on to the next.

I just love when a contractor complains to me that they did not have to do what I am asking when they did a job is town x 2 months ago. This is especially problematic when it is a clear, black and white requirement and it obvious that the contractor did not know the requirement and either the code official in that town does not either or they simply don't care. I am not here to be the friend of the contractors, I am not here to be their enemy either. I am here to enforce the codes which are minimum standards. Our job is not popular because we often give bad news to people and it costs them money. It costs them money, not because we are being dicks but because of their lack of knowledge and lack of planning. So when the contractor does not install AFCI protection where required then tells me he did not have to in town x, I simply tell him this:

"This is a code requirement no matter what town you work in in this state. You should know that and I bet that you do. You are a professional being paid to provide a service to minimum standards which you obviously don't know or are intentionally attempting to circumvent due to the lack of knowledge of the official in town x or the fact that they themselves are intentionally breaking the law by overlooking your incompetence. I cannot control the level of competency in other jurisdictions, but when you are working in this one, you will have to meet minimum standards."
 
jar546 said:
...I just love when a contractor complains to me that they did not have to do what I am asking when they did a job is town x 2 months ago... I simply tell him this:"This is a code requirement no matter what town you work in in this state. You should know that and I bet that you do. You are a professional being paid to provide a service to minimum standards which you obviously don't know or are intentionally attempting to circumvent due to the lack of knowledge of the official in town x or the fact that they themselves are intentionally breaking the law by overlooking your incompetence. I cannot control the level of competency in other jurisdictions, but when you are working in this one, you will have to meet minimum standards."
Click to expand...
I used to say something similar. Used to get a lot of' "But... But... But..." back
 
Insulate to reasonable degree.

Crawlspace- if no or limited access in the future, insulate as well as possible but I would not require spray foam.

Unfinished basement--yeah its an UNFINISHED basement. I am not requiring insulation until it is finished.

Exterior walls--since the house is being gutted it is probably old enough that it is 2 x 4 construction. R-13 minimum but offer suggestions on how to increase.

Ceilings--R-44 or however much you can in limited space but does not have to exceed R-44.
 
jar546 said:
Whether or not we agree with the codes we enforce or not, we need to be consistent in our application of the codes. Nothing is more frustrating to contractors and there is no bigger complaint than inconsistency between code officials and jurisdictions. Nothing takes away from our profession like allowing subjectivity where there is none which makes our decisions inconsistent. If there is a standard, a requirement, a code, we must follow it. Every day I personally approve installations that I don't like nor would I have done the work like I see it. It is however code compliant so I approve and move on to the next.I just love when a contractor complains to me that they did not have to do what I am asking when they did a job is town x 2 months ago. This is especially problematic when it is a clear, black and white requirement and it obvious that the contractor did not know the requirement and either the code official in that town does not either or they simply don't care. I am not here to be the friend of the contractors, I am not here to be their enemy either. I am here to enforce the codes which are minimum standards. Our job is not popular because we often give bad news to people and it costs them money. It costs them money, not because we are being dicks but because of their lack of knowledge and lack of planning. So when the contractor does not install AFCI protection where required then tells me he did not have to in town x, I simply tell him this:

"This is a code requirement no matter what town you work in in this state. You should know that and I bet that you do. You are a professional being paid to provide a service to minimum standards which you obviously don't know or are intentionally attempting to circumvent due to the lack of knowledge of the official in town x or the fact that they themselves are intentionally breaking the law by overlooking your incompetence. I cannot control the level of competency in other jurisdictions, but when you are working in this one, you will have to meet minimum standards."
Click to expand...
Logically:

Full consistency in enforcement and interpretation by code officials = everybody following the example of the most incompetent code official.

In other words: The biggest idiot will set precedent.

If the other town actually "doesn't require that," then you shouldn't because you must be consistent.

If you missed it on the last job, you have to allow it on this job because you must be consistent.

If you just attended continuing ed, and now have a better understanding of the code, you still need to enforce it the way you did when you were ignorant because you must be consistent.

Etc. because you must be consistent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
brudgers said:
Full consistency in enforcement and interpretation by code officials = everybody following the example of the most incompetent code official. In other words: The biggest idiot will set precedent. If the other town actually "doesn't require that," then you shouldn't. If you missed it on the last job, you have to allow it on this job. If you just attended continuing ed, and now have a better understanding of the code, you still need to enforce it the way you did when you were ignorant. Etc.
Click to expand...
This BS requires a response but I can't bring myself to find the right words...
 
TJacobs said:
This BS requires a response but I can't bring myself to find the right words...
Click to expand...
Sarcasm :D

–noun

1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.

2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
 
I have to agree with MT.......brudgers does try and throw out some humor every now and then, but we're not used to it. :devil
 
We did not adopt the Energy portion of the IRC so we use the Energy Code for residential buildings

101.4.3 Additions, alterations, renovations or repairs.

Additions, alterations, renovations or repairs to an existing building, building system or portion thereof shall conform to the provisions of this code as they relate to new construction without requiring the unaltered portion(s) of the existing building or building system to comply with this code. Additions, alterations, renovations or repairs shall not create an unsafe or hazardous condition or overload existing building systems. An addition shall be deemed to comply with this code if the addition alone complies or if the existing building and addition comply with this code as a single building.

Exception: The following need not comply provided the energy use of the building is not increased:

1. Storm windows installed over existing fenestration.

2. Glass only replacements in an existing sash and frame.

3. Existing ceiling, wall or floor cavities exposed during construction provided that these cavities are filled with insulation.

4. Construction where the existing roof, wall or floor cavity is not exposed.

5. Reroofing for roofs where neither the sheathing nor the insulation is exposed. Roofs without insulation in the cavity and where the sheathing or insulation is exposed during reroofing shall be insulated either above or below the sheathing.

6. Replacement of existing doors that separate conditioned space from the exterior shall not require the installation of a vestibule or revolving door, provided, however, that an existing vestibule that separates a conditioned space from the exterior shall not be removed,

7. Alterations that replace less than 50 percent of the luminaires in a space, provided that such alterations do not increase the installed interior lighting power.

8. Alterations that replace only the bulb and ballast within the existing luminaires in a space provided that the alteration does not increase the installed interior lighting power.
 
TJacobs said:
This BS requires a response but I can't bring myself to find the right words...
Click to expand...
I'm dead serious.

Consistency is not a substitute for good judgment or experience.

It is only an excuse of a closed mind.

Hopefully you will learn something today, that makes you realize that you have been doing it wrong for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top