• 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

Plan accuracy

Sifu

Sifu

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
2,808
How do you handle a plan that is inaccurate it the building data, but meets code regardless? For example, I have a DP claiming an existing building is type VA, but it is likely not (it is a converted SFD). Since there are no alterations to any of those elements it really doesn't matter today, but could on a subsequent alteration. I can't find any reason they would want to choose VA over VB, I just don't think they understand the difference or potential ramifications.
 
I had a similar issue come up. They didn't know what to call it and it also came down to a V-A or a V-B. My recommendation was to assume it was V-B as it is a lower classification (less protected) because if they were to claim V-A they might need to show how they have verified the 1-hr ratings. Even if they didn't have to show how it met the 1-hr ratings, it would still be safer to assume V-B and use associated design around that assumption.

I would love to hear any opinions on the accuracy of what I just said. Thanks!
 
Joe.B said:
I had a similar issue come up. They didn't know what to call it and it also came down to a V-A or a V-B. My recommendation was to assume it was V-B as it is a lower classification (less protected) because if they were to claim V-A they might need to show how they have verified the 1-hr ratings. Even if they didn't have to show how it met the 1-hr ratings, it would still be safer to assume V-B and use associated design around that assumption.

I would love to hear any opinions on the accuracy of what I just said. Thanks!
Click to expand...
In this case I did just that. I asked him to either verify the rated assemblies for the construction type or designate it as VB, since he not only called it VA, he also included a paste of t601. His response is that I must be confused. So my response back is "ok, VA it is, remember that when your want to alter one of those assemblies later".

FWIW, He also is using a separated mixed use strategy, which meets code, but so does non-separated. On the initial code analysis his designation was a little unclear so I asked him to verify that as well. Again, he said I am confused. The current proposal is to carve a small section of an existing retail occupancy for a small café operated jointly with the M. I can easily see a time when the café wants to expand into other areas, thereby increasing the occupant load beyond the threshold for a small assembly space and causing a change of occupancy and the requirements that go with it. Why go down that road if you don't need to? Who knows, but the current proposal for separated meets code so they can have at it. Usually, I would think (and has been my experience) the designer would want to choose the path of least resistance that will work for the most potentiality, but they don't have to. But they should at least try to accurately represent the project on the plans. I have another call in to him. If he doesn't want to discuss it anymore then I will assume VA, separated is the way he wants to go and get out of Dodge.
 
Ha! Someone's confused alright... I think you're taking the right approach. Help them if they are willing to accept it, but not worth wasted energy if they already "know".
 
If you are a code official or representing a code official, I recommend avoiding suggesting anything to a plan review applicant. Using Sifu's situation as an example, if the applicant did as Sifu suggested, and later the building burned down, and the owner sued the design professional, the design professional could attempt to push the blame on the AHJ with the defense that they had originally submitted a more fire-resistant building. Of course, the AHJ would counter the argument by stating the design professional had ultimate control over what is submitted and that what was submitted was perfectly legal. The point is, regardless of who is right or wrong, the AHJ would never have been brought into the situation had they left their suggestions to themselves.

As a code consultant, I try to find the path of least resistance, as mentioned above. However, some circumstances may take the design team down a different path that may not be obvious to others. For example, if the owner wants to expand the building in the future eventually, I present a few options, such as an exterior wall constructed as a fire wall with a lower construction type, a standard exterior wall with a higher construction type, or a future fire wall (requires demolition or double fire wall) with a lower construction type.

I have determined the construction type of an existing building (when the AHJ does not have a record and the drawings do not show a construction type) using the record drawings for the original construction, physical inspection of the existing building, or a combination of both. I have used IBC Section 722 and, to a lesser extent, Resource A in the IEBC for determining the fire resistance of existing construction. This analysis is provided in a report that the design team can present to the AHJ to justify the construction type for the project.
 
Ron,

Thanks for that advice.
It would be great if all applicants were to heed this advice and hire a competent RDP to guide them through the process.
Additionally some RDPs need to heed the advice to provide complete and accurate code review, construction and permit documents, not the close enough submittals.
 
Last edited:
To be clear, I am not suggesting they provide a VA or a VB building or that they should use a particular mixed use strategy. I only asked them to clarify their intent. But, I did inform them that as a VA building they may have to verify the ratings, and as separated, any future expansion may be more difficult. I spoke with the DP a few minutes ago, and his use of a VA designation was based on the fact that he thought the building was 3 stories...violating t504.4. Using the IEBC they would be changing to a lower hazard and this wouldn't matter. He was using separated because in t508.4 there was no separation required. I explained that the attic in the (house) was not considered a story, and that the number of stories doesn't come into play, and that if choosing separated as a strategy they could run into issues in the future, and that as non-separated there would be no issue. This is all really just word salad, as the building works, just not the way he was proposing. I suggested he accurately represent the construction type, not re-invent it because he thought it would meet meet code, and choose the strategy that works best for both current and future plans. He agreed.

But, I 100% agree, I try to never suggest a design path for the very reason you suggest. This irritates the powers that be because they want me to find solutions (and so do I). I walk the tightrope between the two, being as careful as I can to avoid the finger pointing of "he said to do it this way". In a meeting yesterday the applicant said they were going to provide an R occupancy (two units) on the second floor of a small building because as a B their architect said they would need to provide an elevator. I "suggested" that they and their architect should explore 1104.4 a little more closely.
 
RLGA said:
If you are a code official or representing a code official, I recommend avoiding suggesting anything
Click to expand...
Inspectors are asked , "What do you want me to do?"...."What should I do?" .... "What can I do?" .... "What would you do?"

The pitfalls of answering the questions are such that uttering anything except, "It is up to you to figure it out." opens you up to future grief. The most obvious reason is that there are usually several ways to address the issue.....so if I give you just one and later you discover another that suits you better than the one I gave you....well then I am the bad guy. If I give you several you ask, "Which one do you want...should I do...can I do...would you do."

Next on the list is, "What do you mean this is wrong? I did it just the way you told me."

Of course there are simple things with simple solutions. Sometimes they are so deep into what they never should have attempted that you just have to take over. When it comes to plans....they are on their own.
 
Last edited:
Customer, I would like to build a space to do xxx, waht are the requirements in your town? BO, what is required by the state wide building code. Customer OK but what do you want. BO, what is required by the state wide building code. Customer, yea, how should I do that, I don't want to hire a RDP just tell me what the code says. Exasperated BO, words lots of words.
 
I have had that experience a few times. If they're in the office I start grabbing code books and showing them sections, eagerly pointing out all of the stuff they need to look at. With the first book they're taking notes, the second book the eyes start going wide, by the third book they get my point. It doesn't work quite as well over the phone but I tell them where they can find the codes etc... If you don't work in this industry it's hard to comprehend the scope of what's covered by code. Sure you can save some money by trying to do it yourself, but it's not something you can pick up in a couple of days.
 
If they state it is V-A, they need to provide documentation that the existing structure meets it.

Another way to look at this is 5, 10, 20-years down the road someone reviews the file and sees it listed as V-A on the plan and they propose a change of use that would be permitted under V-A but not V-B, then what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top