Steel building as a residence

[Sifu]

Got a permit for a steel building, 6000sf garage attached to a 2000sf single family dwelling. My jurisdiction has only adopted the 2006 IRC. Can I approve anything on this given the absence of any provisions for this type of construction in the IRC. The plans I received are designed per the 06 IBC (which we have not adopted) but only cover the shell. No fdtn, dwelling unit or any other provisions, just the shell of the two buildings. If this were permitted as a commercial building I wouldn't be inspecting it since we only inspect residential structures. It seems the structural provisions can only be approved by the IBC which has me at a loss as to what to do with it. If all the structural elements were engineered would that be acceptable under 301.1.3-engineered design? Could I then proceed under the IRC?

I know a lot of questions will come about the screwed up system I am working in but I can't change that. For some who have read my posts before you'll be somewhat familiar. I re-iterate, we have only adopted the IRC (only chapters 1-11), I have no certified building official, we do not inspect anything but residential one and two family dwellings.

 

[JBI]

In short, yes. You approve the structural frame as an engineered element and make sure the applicant demonstrates compliance with the prescriptive provisions of the IRC for all else.

 

[Builder Bob]

The foundation will require an engineered design..........The engineered components of the steel building are only as good as the foundation which much be designed for the structure.

BTW Good Luck

 

[cda]

been around for awhile

http://www.steelframehomesinc.com/about.html

 

[Sifu]

I realize that the fdtn will require a design and that it is not new to have a residential steel frame house (my sister lived in one 20 years ago). What I am unsure of is under what code it would be inspected. I assume IBC but without that tool I am guessing an engineered structure is what I need to get past the frame and foundation and then back into the IRC for the non-structural elements. I have never had to make this decision before and unfortunately have nobody to kick it upstairs to.

 

[mtlogcabin]

It will not meet the prescripted methods of the adopted IRC so look at it as alternate design and methods of construction. If it meets the IBC you can accept it an inspect it to as an IBC building. The engineered designed drawing should be based on the IBC requirements.

R104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment.

The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code. Compliance with the specific performance-based provisions of the International Codes in lieu of specific requirements of this code shall also be permitted as an alternate.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Forgot the important part

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. Where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply.

R104.11 references all of the International codes so you can accept any one or two family dwelling or townhouse and additions that are designed using the I-Codes

A 6,000 sq ft garage addition to a residence is pretty big. I would question what the garage will be used for and maybe make that a condition of the permit.

 

[Sifu]

I brought up the use with the director of the department. They won't cry foul unless a complaint comes in.

 

[Architect1281]

I have always admired the Garage is 3 times the house kind of people. I would strive to be one someday,

the toy box should always be larger than the house....

Until it becomes the local service station.. my neighbors garage and house are about the same size

and he is always fixing the race car he bends on the weekends, perfectly acceptable and fun to help.

 

[righter101]

Isn't the fact that it would be considered an "accessory structure" and that it exceeds the 3000 square foot threshold set forth by the IRC of concern??

 

[tmurray]

Isn't the fact that it would be considered an "accessory structure" and that it exceeds the 3000 square foot threshold set forth by the IRC of concern??

You consider attached garages accessory buildings?

 

[Sifu]

They (I say they cuz I'm outta there!) don't view it as accessory since it is attached. They do have a 3000' restriction but apparently ignore it a lot of the time anyway. I spoke with the owner before I hit the road and told him to provide an engineered foundation plan and a report for the fills he used to place his foundation on. I said once we got past that we could build his shell per his engineered plan and revert back to the non-structural provisions of the IRC for the rest. Of course who knows what will happen now?