• 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

Manufacturer's [fill in the blank]

Glenn

Registered User
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
889
Location
Denver
As an independent, self-employed code consultant and educator, I am going to be bringing boring proposals to the 2027 IRC in an attempt to clean up some of the piecework of the last decades. The motivation is only to have a better written code. I welcome your feedback and collaboration.

While writing my most recent Know the Code article, I discovered terminology that needs to be cleaned up. Notice the list of phrases I quote.


Perhaps we should just use the term defined in chapter 2? But do you see a major significance to the term "specifications" over "instructions"?

Is there anyway to address this without a proposal covering 200 pages? BCAC anyone? ICC Staff? How can we clean up the IRC so it looks more like the professional standard it is?
 
I hit a paywall on FHB article. Was very interested since my proposal for per manufactures instructions for NFPA 80 failed.

As far as
How can we clean up the IRC so it looks more like the professional standard it is?
minimize the homebuilders influence.
 
I hit a paywall on FHB article. Was very interested since my proposal for per manufactures instructions for NFPA 80 failed.

As far as

minimize the homebuilders influence.
You should be able to read a few article for free each month before paying.

Respectfully, I disagree about minimizing anyone's influence in code development. The process is open for anyone to participate and contribute. I have for the last decade and while I don't agree with everything home builders bring to the the table, I can say that about any group or interest. I have worked directly with NAHB and builders on code development and appreciate the perspective, experience, and opinions they bring.

Contractors similarly demonize Simpson Strong Tie and their influence, and I defend SST in the exact same manner.

IMHO the only unwelcome players in code development are the ones that lie, cheat, and game the system simply to "win".

I'll check out your proposal and see what I can learn. What number is it?
 
Glenn,
I copied the following statement from your article:

"It’s not uncommon to hear people argue that the reference to “recommendations” is not mandatory in the way a reference to “requirements” is, but I’m here to tell you, the IRC references to the instructions—including those that don’t include the word “instructions”—are mandatory, regardless."

Recommendations are not enforceable. While you might see a benefit of enforcing a recommendation, the contractor merely has to appeal to a higher authority and you will lose every time.
 
But do you see a major significance to the term "specifications" over "instructions"?
Yes. Instructions tells you how to use an item, or how to incorporate it into an assembly so that it will perform as intended. Specifications is just data … dimensions, what it’s made of, MSDS type info.
 
Recommendations are not enforceable. While you might see a benefit of enforcing a recommendation, the contractor merely has to appeal to a higher authority and you will lose every time.
Maybe so but in a liability suit, if a contractor didn't follow the manufacturers recommendations, they'll likely loose and their insurance will pay. A different kind of enforcement.
 
Maybe so but in a liability suit, if a contractor didn't follow the manufacturers recommendations, they'll likely loose and their insurance will pay. A different kind of enforcement.
I have questioned manufacturers regarding recommendations. I determined that not applying recommendations will not affect a warranty, void a listing or detract from the use, lifespan or performance of any of the items so queried.
 
Just a little something on this vein I put together recently....About bollards for an oil tank in a garage..Not a complete process but some food for thought...

Yep….And they were informed if the manufacturers installation instructions required something beyond code, then those MAY prevail and they may not:


(Amd) R102.4 Referenced codes and standards. The codes and standards referenced in this

code shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each

such reference and as further regulated in Sections R102.4.1 and R102.4.2. Any reference to the

ICC codes shall mean the 2018 Connecticut State Building Code adopted pursuant to section 29-

252 of the Connecticut General Statutes.

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.



In this case it is a non-provision so the exception is not in play….




R102.4.1 Conflicts.
Where conflicts occur between

provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards,

the provisions of this code shall apply.



R102.4.2 Provisions in referenced codes and standards.

Where the extent of the reference to a referenced

code or standard includes subject matter that is within the

scope of this code, the provisions of this code, as applicable,

shall take precedence over the provisions in the

referenced code or standard
.



M1301.3 Installation of materials. Materials shall be

installed in strict accordance with the standards under which

the materials are accepted and approved. In the absence of

such installation procedures, the manufacturer’s instructions

shall be followed. Where the requirements of referenced

standards or manufacturer’s instructions do not conform to

minimum provisions of this code, the provisions of this code

shall apply.
 
I have questioned manufacturers regarding recommendations. I determined that not applying recommendations will not affect a warranty, void a listing or detract from the use, lifespan or performance of any of the items so queried.
Seems to me if someone is risk adverse, they follow the recommendations. Ultimately up to the judge and jury.
 
Glenn,
I copied the following statement from your article:

"It’s not uncommon to hear people argue that the reference to “recommendations” is not mandatory in the way a reference to “requirements” is, but I’m here to tell you, the IRC references to the instructions—including those that don’t include the word “instructions”—are mandatory, regardless."

Recommendations are not enforceable. While you might see a benefit of enforcing a recommendation, the contractor merely has to appeal to a higher authority and you will lose every time.
Then the code should not refer to recommendations at all. There will be some great debate about this at the 2027 hearings because this needs to be discussed. The language of the IRC is not this well thought out. That's clear with the list of phrases I provided.
 
Yes. Instructions tells you how to use an item, or how to incorporate it into an assembly so that it will perform as intended. Specifications is just data … dimensions, what it’s made of, MSDS type info.
Agreed.
 
Then the code should not refer to recommendations at all.
That holds true for installation instructions and construction drawings as well.

AC condensers used to recommend that the condenser not be placed below a a roof eave that would allow the roof to drain on the condenser. That made sense in that the leaves, granules, etc. build up inside the condenser and eventually rot the bottom. I would write a correction to install a rain diverter on the roof over the condenser. Now and then a contractor would point to the word recommended while refusing to comply. That recommendation has gone away from most installation instructions and was never included with condensers that are not open at the top.

Pool plans by one of the most prolific engineers in California show a detail for an expansion joint between concrete slabs and fixed objects such as buildings, block walls and pool coping. There is the word"recommended" with the detail. The same plan shows clean rock under the perimeter slab with the word "recommended" and compacted soil where anything passes under the slab....and slab perimeters....all recommended.

All swimming pool heaters have a port for a T&P relief valve. There is enough water volume in the coils of the heater to classify it as a storage tank heater so the T&P valve is required. The installation instructions state that the T&P valve is recommended if the local jurisdiction requires it. I always did and any contractors that went to the manager were let off the hook.

There should not be recommendations. That puts the inspector on the spot.
Look inside the AC condenser at your home. That debris holds water and encourages rust. Now try to clean it out. That diverter makes sense huh.

I've never heard of a pool heater exploding but then neither have I heard of any other water heater exploding.

I've seen plenty of pool decks lifting because water got under the concrete...oh and coping gets loose with tile falling off even with the expansion joint just because the joint deteriorated and filled with dirt.

If the expansion joint is eliminated around a pool and the coping starts popping off or even worse the bond beam is damaged....well then the recommendation proves to be something more.
 
Top