Building Codes

[alex trent]

I did not mean to start a war of words about this. Let me rephrase a bit.

I think code are great and if you REALLY do not know what you are doing, should be the basic you build to. In some instances, you may need to add to what is missing...like FV and his fire strategy. 

Some of the stuff in the codes is BS, but to reach something that is right for the "average person" all have to put up with them. Let's face it, we are over regulated in a lot of areas in the USA...and way under regulated in others...or at least under-enforced. So ugh rests on the discretion of the inspector that it compromises the system.

For those who are not bound by the code or inspectors, you REALLY need to be sure you know what you are doing to "build around" the code, or be ready to take a really big risk.  i am not bound by code, but some of what i built exceeds it: I have hurricane ties on the rafters and collar ties on every one. I have a big open space facing the windward side and the potential for good winds.

On the other hand my rafter ties are 8 feet apart, my purlins for the tin roof 3 feet and some of my 2x6 studs 4 feet spacing.  I built on piers in soil of less than "lab" determined substance..and compensated by going 50% over what i calculated is necessary. . I am very confident that this will be OK. I lack experience, but did my homework on here and other places and looked around at what was here and talked to people who built a lot of non-traditional structures that have held up.  But the onus is on me, so if it falls frown...I will report it and expect no sympathy.

[John Raabe]

Well said Erin.

Building codes have not evolved as a set of guidelines for building a quality house, but as a historic record of attempted solutions to problems that have shown up at various times. Much like a study of the bible, Torah or Koran, you will find lots of redundancy (where several rules attempt to solve the same problem) and solutions to problems that no longer exist. Conflicts are inevitable and thus we must rely on interpretations and judgement.

It takes a good experienced builder or inspector to know what should be paid attention and what to disregard.

When it comes to structural issues a review by an engineer can sometimes clear the air and provide a fresh perspective.

Here is an image of collar ties and rafter ties that has been discussed many times.

When my engineer looked at this diagram when I had him review the plans for the 20' wide 1-1/2 story cottage, he said he didn't use any of these old code rules as they were from an era when 30' wide buildings were typically framed up with 2x4 and 2x6 rafters. Those spindly rafters needed to be supported by these tension ties over their long spans. This diagram is a solution to that problem.

But, when looking at a 20' wide building done with deep rafters (such as 2x10 or 2x12 chosen for the insulation depth) the forces are very different. He looked at these as cantilevers rather than using the old collar and rafter tie rules above. A couple of 2x12 rafters with a solid tie almost anywhere along the rafter would have plenty of stiffness to cantilever the span to the wall. Especially with a 12:12 pitch and a metal roof. And this is without a balloon framed 2x6 wall tied by the floor joist to provide additional cantilever stiffness. The connections need to be well made at the rafter tie (he likes bolts) and you need to have a metal strap across the top, but this was a most refreshing analysis that confirmed my design and some of the modifications that others have shown on this forum.

So, if you want to do a framing option that seems right to you but you're bumping up against a code rule, check with an experienced engineer. They have the freshness of science on their side not just the slavish interpretations of code books.

[flyingvan]

  You're sure right on the maintenance being key to longevity.  I suppose a  well maintained cheaply built house will outlast a neglected overbuilt one.  I really don't think building to code means quality--I still see it as a minimum, a starting point.
   While reading these posts it occurred to me that every owner/builder probably has their own set of priorities, and unique reasons for wanting to build a place.  There's a balance between size, style, ease of construction, environmental concerns, expense, energy efficiency, logistics...  I think it's more an art than a science.  Just like art, there's science behind it all and you need some fundamentals.
     One other reason to go oversized with the timbers, and one of my biggest motivations, was to get more R-value out of my walls, floor, and ceiling.   I needed it to qualify for my 'green building' stamp, which saved enough of my permit fees to cover the difference in cost.  We get temperature extremes up here (the real challenge is the sub freezing winter winds.  If you've got an airgap somewhere, you'll know it)
     My biggest fear for longevity is the TJI's.  I'm taking it on faith that the adhesives won't turn to powder after 30 years
     John---I like your visual and explanation.  I've always preferred the load bearing ridge that hangs the rafters, but still add ceiling ties and collar ties.  I've been up on roofs with a house fire underneath trying to cut a ventilation hole---if the house was built with trusses (like so many nowadays) those trusses fail quick.  The gusset plates heat up fast and fail, and the whole truss collapses.   I didn't design thinking I'd make things easy on the firemen when it burns down,  but I do want to plan for the tree branch that's going to come crashing down someday  Also---your engineer likes bolts to attach rafter ties.  Is lock-tight or a lock nut required?  I ask because I went up in the attic of house #1 and every nut was loose enough I could remove them with my fingers.  I think the changes in humidity over time moved things around enough to work them loose

[MushCreek]

I have mixed feelings about building codes. My conservative side says that codes are important and must be followed, but my libertarian side says, "Hey- it's my house on my property; I should be able to do what I want!"

I've always felt that there should be a clause to allow people to build their own death-trap should they so desire. The clause being that if they sell it, they would have to disclose that it was non-code. Also, don't expect insurance companies to come rushing to your aid. I suppose they would also require warning signs so that visitors to Chez Shack would know they were in danger.

I don't know how many articles I've read about adventurous sorts building a unique home, with no mention of all of the building codes that it violates. Overall size, materials, stairways, etc. are often way outside of the current codes. Tiny homes are sometimes built on a trailer frame to cheat the codes.

Some codes have obvious good sense; others seem a bit silly, but then, that's bureaucracy for ya. I had my barn plumbing inspected, and got rejected for not having an anti-scald shower valve. For a barn?! I wish the retailer had indicated that the valve they sold me was non-code compliant.

My original plan was to build part of my house timber frame, using the beautiful red oaks that had to come down. But I ran up against code, and would have to have the structure engineered ($$$), and have the timbers graded ($$$). So instead of building from massive red oak timbers, harvested literally feet away, it makes more sense(?) to build from what passes as 'lumber' these days. Grumble, grumble, grumble......

[Don_P]

I deleted a post above that stood a good chance of escalating in the wrong direction, didn't want to go there. I have bumped into what Jay has run into in spades and it is frustrating. I wish I could tell a story right now. I backed off when trying to modify that code when I sat back and watched timbers become whatever grade was needed to make the grade if self graded. I've seen the same thing in old precode houses here. Mixed feelings about whether laws can stop someone who just doesn't know or care.

I think this does a good job of restating what many of us have been saying for awhile, and it is what the code says;

if you want to do a framing option that seems right to you but you're bumping up against a code rule, check with an experienced engineer. They have the freshness of science on their side not just the slavish interpretations of code books.

Basically, when you want to depart from what we know to be sound construction practices, that slavish but time tested prescriptive path of the codebook, engineering is needed. that's part of why I taught myself basic easy engineering but overconfidence in that has gotten me into trouble before. I've backed up and called in the big guns more than once when I've considered the repercussions of what would happen if I was wrong.

It was good to hear about John's engineer's findings. The trick is in the detailing, the devil is always in the details. I believe I understand the reason for bolting the connection. Well installed bolts take load immediately, they resist spread right now where nails slip a bit before taking full load. As the tie is lifted above the carpenter's cantilever rule of thumb (2 units of backspan for every unit of cantilever... or don't raise the tie above 1/3 of roof height) the magnification of slip at the tie down at the rafter feet can cause problems... lock it tight, no slip, slip=thrust.There is a limit to raising the tie dependent on load, pitch, etc. The forces really magnify as the tie is raised. This is the reason behind the engineering requirement.

I think I can answer your question FV from the Wood Engineering Handbook, a freebie at the Forest Products Labs website, (I'll dig up and post the link tonight in the refs section). As the wood dried from the initial moisture content, 19% typical at the store, down to the 6-10% in servive up in the attic, it shrank. The nuts were then loose, They say to go back and tighten them when the wood has reached equilibrium with the final conditions. I doubt they worked loose but they could have, locknuts are not a bad thing... need to go check the big 1" bolts in my shop timbers, that mental note to go back and check got lost in my head till your post reminded me.

I have the same feelings as Jay at times and then at others I really see the point in somebody saying ,Whoa!
When my BIL inherited his parent's cabin and turned it into a permanent home we went underneath. It had been wired with those little 16 ga drop cords  , how it never overheated and burned I do not know and if they had not caught it and put full load on any of those circuits I'm pretty sure it would have. People do the craziest things.

[flyingvan]

  I thought one way of avoiding building codes altogether---instead of digging a foundation on my lot, dig a deep pond instead.  In lieu of building a cabin I'd build a boat and float it in the pond.
  Wood shrinkage makes perfect sense as to why the nuts were loose.  Sounds like an opportunity for a product design
   I really had no idea the topic of building past what codes require would be a contentious issue.  I try to save my contentious issue discussions for politics and religion, where they belong----building and thinking about building is my happy place, a respite from derision.  My neighbors used to call on me to help as their projects were slipping down the hill---now they call early on instead.   Our neighborhood poses quite a few building challenges----high wind loads, snow loads, rapid temperature swings, seismic challenges, woodpeckers, termites, scenic highway viewshed requirements, and the mountain's tendency to erode into the sea.  I'm starting to realize what's common sense building here might be ridiculous and wasteful elsewhere---a symptom of the problem of applying a  'uniform' building code to a planet that is anything but.
    Better than looking at codes is looking at 'why' the builder built the house.  If the builder's 'why' was efficient mass production to make a whole bunch of money, I'd expect a house that was built to the very edge of what was allowable.  If the 'why' reflected a passion for creating a space guarded from the elements, creating a unique space where people felt good just by being there, I'd expect the home to be built beyond what was required.  I've stood atop mass produced houses and I can make the whole house shake by rocking back and forth.  The brand new roof feels spongy.  The airflows inside are poor.  Nice granite countertop, though.

[alex trent]

 If the 'why' reflected a passion for creating a space guarded from the elements, creating a unique space where people felt good just by being there, I'd expect the home to be built beyond what was required.

Again, you are still confusing"unique", "feeling good being there " with building beyond what was required (in terms of code)...and confusing lousy, mass produced houses with well built houses that are not overbuilt structurally, but built well and designed well and fit what a person needs. If bragging about overbuilding is what starts your heart, you should do it.

[John Raabe]

I'm not really sure where the contentious issue is here?

There really isn't a line where building is "just right" and to the left it is underbuilt and to the right it is overbuilt. Even the most careful builder misses a few things and the sloppy builder is probably overdoing something. That doesn't even get to the most important reality question: "Will this house ever see the extreme loads that the codes and engineering are hoping to survive?" That will be the real test but a roll of the dice.

So there is a lot of slack and redundancy in building - as there should be. It's called the safety factor.

There is also a lot of opinion and judgement in most of us and that's where the line is really drawn. We mostly like what we like (and sometimes do) and everything else is either crap or overdone. That's called human nature - and it won't be changing real soon. 

[flyingvan]

    I'm confused, but my confusion comes from an assumption that I'm motivated by 'bragging rights'.  I have yet to see some sort of competition where the stoutest house wins---my original opinion was, and is, comply with the codes but tend towards quality over thrift.  There are opportunities to choose something a little bit better in every stage of building---from the diameter of copper in your pipes to the gauge wiring in your house to the exterior paint.  I choose this not to brag---my main motivation is this---I can't get life insurance because of the work I do.  I CAN get homeowners insurance, so I'm building houses.   If my helicopter falls out of the sky, I want AnnaMarie to have a great place to live that's as maintenance free as possible, that keeps the outside out, is energy efficient, and makes it possible for her to live in the neighborhood she loves.  If renting the other places becomes a burden she'll have the option of selling them.
    I can just see it---giving a tour of the finished cottage.  People are admiring the view, but I'm bragging about using all type 'L' copper in the piping and all 12 AWG wiring for the fixtures.  People don't care that the walls are R-26 instead of R-19, but when they come inside from the storm, they'll feel how snug the house is.  I could brag about carefully planning airflows and maintaining a positive pressure in the house, but I'd mostly get blank stares---but if the house felt stuffy, people would notice that. 
   In the absence of any codes, my houses would be a little different---I wouldn't enclose the soffits.   I wouldn't have windows that were tempered glass inside and out.  My wrap around porch would have been done as cantilevered joists perpendicular to cantilevered beams.  I'd have more windows, too.  I also would have loved to build with lumber milled from all the deadfall from the Cedar Fire that's currently rotting on the ground.  Building completely from local and native materials---now THAT would have been something worth bragging about.

[Erin]

Frankly, I don't think you're at all motivated by "bragging rights." 
I think you're just misunderstanding what the true purpose of "code" is.  Because again, "quality" and "code" don't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with each other.  They certainly don't have to be mutually exclusive, but one is certainly not a guarantee of the other.  Code is not really a "starting point" of anything beyond making an inspector happy and helping a builder understand basic engineering...
But then, that's a common mistake.  (Which is why this is a rather hot issue, btw.  It's been discussed before.  )

My original plan was to build part of my house timber frame, using the beautiful red oaks that had to come down. But I ran up against code, and would have to have the structure engineered ($$$), and have the timbers graded ($$$). So instead of building from massive red oak timbers, harvested literally feet away, it makes more sense(?) to build from what passes as 'lumber' these days. Grumble, grumble, grumble......

And I think that's precisely the complaint for most people.  Common sense is often over-ridden by bureaucracy.
The fact that your "massive red oak timbers" would need to be graded and stamped, and then the frame engineered, is ridiculous.  Timber frame plans are extremely overbuilt to begin with and red oak is one of the best woods you could use.     

[flyingvan]

   Agree completely.  We're all held to the codes, I've never thought that code=quality at all.  Trying to build sub-code probably isn't quality either, though you can build far superior to code and not be in compliance.  I think the codes are mostly the yin to offset the mass developer yang (really plain old liability should be yang enough).  The codes weren't written with the owner/builder in mind.  I wonder if there are any stats on what percentage of homes occupied today are owner/builder vs. mass produced?  How many were built prior to codes? 
   A quasi-related topic is the Simpson Strong Ties story.  Simpson was a screen maker until someone asked him to build a rafter hangar, which he did, and did all the necessary engineering.  Instead of selling them right away though, he was scared of cheap knock offs that weren't engineered but might appear to do the same job, so he went to the feds and said---"I've done the homework, I just want you to hold other manufacturers to this standard" So, they stamped things as 'Simpson or better'.  The UBC and Simpson maintain that relationship today----from the way it's been explained to me (could all be urban legend but I'm not one to let facts get in the way of a good story) Simpson does the engineering in exchange for a corner on the market. 
    I also agree 100% with just let us build how we want, and if we go to sell or the insurance company requies, have an engineer rate the structure.  I'm thankful for some standards for what the exterior looks like for the sake of the neighborhood.  Tijuana doesn't look all that attractive

[Danfish]

It is hard to disagree with code requirements that truly deal with reasonable safety issues and good construction practice.  It is the complexity of interpretation, bureaucracy, and often times lack of adequate or practical inspection that encourages one to bypass the permit process.  I can't tell you how many times I have had to pull out the written code and ask the building official to show me were it says what he or she just stated.  Once I had to get a letter of explaination from the individual who wrote the code to demonstrate the correct code interpretation.

Not to mention requirements like the California energy codes that were dreamed up by bureaucrats and wacko environmentalist with no practical experience in their application.  Like one presidential candidate recently said; "if all the regulations of today existed in Edison's time, the government would have forced the incandescent light bulb off the market...Oh they just did that!"

Flyingvan's comment about building a house boat brought to mind, my own story about codes and permits.  Ten years ago I designed and built a pier on Lake Tahoe for my neighbors.  After two years of permit processing with every agency in existence, I went to the city to apply for a building permit and was promptly told they had no jurisdiction over water and I did not need a permit from them.  I was amazed because not one of the other agencies reviewed the project from a structural perspective, so that ment I could probably have built anything.  Well this past fall Lake Tahoe experience a massive wind storm and waves up to eight feet...the result as shown in the picture below tells the story with the neighboring boathouse that once stood on a not so well constructed pier, now sitting on the lake bottom.  The pier in the foreground is the well engineered one I built (note the ice build up).  Talk about bragging rights!!!

[Don_P]

Timber frame plans are extremely overbuilt to begin with.

A common misconception. The same engineering, only the dimensions and spacings change. I had a new inspector come to check a log home with heavy timber roof system. He walked in, looked up and said, "that's the stoutest roof I've ever seen in a house." So I walked him through it, we had a 6x16 glulam ridgebeam spanning 24' with 4x10 rafters on 4' centers hanging from that, it was decked with 2x6 t&g. The ridgebeam was engineered to carry the load just like a very longspan girder. If I were to saw the 4x10's into 2x10's I would be right on the span tables in the codebook for 2' spacing. At the 4' spacing the codebook called for 2x sheathing.

The pictures I've posted of the current job are of oak timbers from the site, mostly different species of red but a few whites. The inspector allowed me to grade them, and I rejected or cut down a number to get around objectionable defects that would have posed problems. Big timbers carry heavier loads, there is less redundancy so one part failing can overload the structure quickly if you are not careful.  The adjoining county I have to have a grader but he has allowed me to have an engineer sign off on the timbers. I called an engineer friend, he came over. He knows that I've been to grading school, so I showed him how to grade and we were off to the races, even the inspector said it was BS but he has to enforce the law. I don't blame him... too much. Part of the fun stuff in designing with the many species around me, remember we have talked about checking that a support post won't crush into the underside of a beam? Wood is much stronger in end grain compression than in side grain. I was getting into a problem of the posts potentially crushing into the red oak beams, so I used white oak up top which is far stronger in side grain compression and red oak for the posts which had plenty of capacity as a column. You can use the different characteristics where they shine. A heavily loaded and pegged tie in my shop is black gum... ever try to split black gum  The tree spirals clockwise for a few years then counterclockwise, back and forth, totally interlocked, unsplittable. You do get about 2 boards per tree that dont turn into boat props though, lots of dimensional firewood.

Simpson, Kant-Sag and USP all have ESR's (Engineering Services (third party auditing lab) Reports) for hangers etc, and probably a number more if we go look. The reason we call joist hanger nails teco's is they were originally manufactured by... TECO. I think I pointed out on Al's thread that if you look behind the code to the referenced documents, in this case the NDS, Nat'l Design Standard for Wood Construction, there are tables of steel plate and sheet design strengths that are recognized. You can find them on the awc.org connections calc as well.

The rafter ties with collar ties being old code, it's not in my 2000, it is required in my '06. We've straightened out the terminology a few times. For the uplift the strap over the top is also fine. This came out of high wind failures. No collars in the '92 CABO, the best codebook IMO. Rafter and collar beams at 4' max in the '96. While flipping through the '68 SBCCI, collar beams (compression member rather than tension) were required every 5' or less, we could lift the rafter ties to halfway (you'll recognize that era while driving around), piles were required to extend 8' below grade except coastal was at least 16' below grade, 8x8 minimum, 8' spacing max. Unless designed by an architect or engineer. B vent on the range fan. Smokes in the '74. Firestopping '81 revision, energy codes in the '82, 30" tall guards at 36" or more above grade in '83, winders got a min 4" width and 9" walkline that year as well .
I forget the point, just wandering through. In some of the old books they considered me competent, gave me design values of dozens of species and said have at it if you know how to do it right. Very few carpenters left anymore though  .

[MikeC]

"Listen, lad. I've built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. The king said I was daft to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. An' that's what your gonna get, lad -- the strongest castle in these islands."

Maybe building from local experience is best, rather than an international code?

In our area there was no building code until 1992, some counties still don't have codes for private residences.  There are many 100 year old+ homes here, our previous home is one.  Current home also was not built to "code".  However there are code built homes which have failed structurally - snow loads mainly.  The White House of course was not built to code...

I think that if non code homes exhibited a much elevated fire danger, that would be reflected in much higher costs for home insurance - I don't see that here - YMMV. 

Occasionally codes encourage poor to dangerous building practices - aluminum wiring, & wafer board (IIRC) roof sheathing in Florida. 


As I see it, building codes are simply an excuse for bureaucratic meddling in residential construction - same as minimum house size.

[Squirl]

It is interesting that the original question was  "Can you come up with some building codes you think are unreasonable?"  Many people seem to dislike enforcement, but not individual aspects.  There are many regional differences.  The IRC is the most common.   A few things that people have disagreements with are not actually in the building code, but in many locations enforced by the building department. 

In most states that I have research (actually all that I have found so far) septic is actually under the health code and health department.  Many states enforce it through the building department, but not all.  PA has a separate septic enforcement officer from the health department.  I am building in NY and almost all counties have enforcement of the health code through the building department, but not all.   I found out from one member here, that some counties leave it up to the health department.

Minimum housing size is usually an HOA requirement or a zoning issue for a locality.  I believe the only minimum size for ICC is 70 sq. ft for a room, and minimum spacing for a bathroom, which to my recollection is about 20 sq. ft..

The code itself is very flexible.  It is filled with many caveats of other methods.  Don_P makes a good example.  There is a lot in there, that people don't know is in there.  They have girder span/size charts, post size charts, rafter size charts, 4 ft on center lumber sheathing, field stone houses, and much more.

[Erin]

A common misconception. The same engineering, only the dimensions and spacings change.

Well, yes.  But the way I've always understood it, in order to have the joinery large enough to withstand stresses, the resulting posts and beams will be oversized for the application...  Is that not the case?

[flyingvan]

  Septic issues here are handled by Department of Environmental Health (DEH) but they've told me on more than one occasion their rules are manipulated by other county departments to prevent overbuilding in rural areas----the linear feet rquirements for the field, and the 100% reserve field requirements render many, many lots unbuildable.  My septic engineer laughs about the reserve field requirement because if a field had to be rebuilt, it would be re-trenched in between the trenches of the original field.  I guess what they don't want is a whole bunch of 1/5 acre lots with houses squeezed upon them, clustered to have a negative impact on the nitrate load.  Since we're completely dependent on well water it might be a wise consideration
  So far the feedback on opinions of unreasonable building codes are fire sprinklers and baluster spacing.  Hardly Orwellian, in my opinion.  I wonder how many developed countries there are where owner/builder status is simply forbidden?

[Don_P]

in order to have the joinery large enough to withstand stresses, the resulting posts and beams will be oversized for the application

Hmm, depends on how you are looking at it I suppose. The amount of wood remaining in a joinery area is often what controls the member dimensions. That section of wood is the size of the member, that is the controlling dimension. The member is no stronger than that weakened section, there is no more strength in the member due to the fact that it is thicker beside the notch. That wood is sort of like nailing blocking between joists along a girder, it doesn't make the girder stronger. In a TF engineering conference in Roanoke a few years ago they were showing the results of testing (nothing like video of huge beams breaking and bouncing around the lab  ) they had found out that in a notched principle rafter or girder set up for drop in purlins or joists, most engineers had been using the entire section of wood remaining after notching, sort of an inverted T section of wood, an I beam without a top flange. Seemed reasonable, that was how I figured them. The breaking tests showed that was optimistic, the true section to figure on was just the rectangle of wood between the notches... only the web of the I beam. We were and have been running deeper into the safety margin than modern construction. It is neat stuff with it's own quirks, Point loads develop double the bending moment compared to uniform loads, can be a biggie in frames that collect and deliver load to discrete points the way TF does. More details in another thread maybe if it's of more than passing interest?

[SouthernTier]

It is interesting that the original question was  "Can you come up with some building codes you think are unreasonable?"  Many people seem to dislike enforcement, but not individual aspects. 

OK, I've got one.  The minimum separation distances between various components in the bathroom (sink from toilet, etc.).  Can't for the life or me see why this is important.  This one is tough for the small cabin I want to build.

In most states that I have research (actually all that I have found so far) septic is actually under the health code and health department.  Many states enforce it through the building department, but not all.  PA has a separate septic enforcement officer from the health department.  I am building in NY and almost all counties have enforcement of the health code through the building department, but not all.   I found out from one member here, that some counties leave it up to the health department.

That was me I think.  Interesting how things vary county to county and town to town.  Speaking of town to town...

Minimum housing size is usually an HOA requirement or a zoning issue for a locality.

Another member here not far from my property (one town over diagonal-wise) has a town-specified minimum size of 700 or 800 SF or so.  No way I want to build something that big for a cabin.  Fortunately my town doesn't have that.  But it shows it doesn't have to be a HOA requirement.

[flyingvan]

After having to un-wedge people that have fallen and gotten stuck, sometimes for days, between bathroom fixtures---I can see why that's in place.  It would be cool if owner/builders weren't held to all the same rules as mass developers (If you're ever so inclined, look up all the complaint sites generated by disgruntled K&B Homes customers)  But again, I'm not sure it's the government's job to protect us from ourselves.  If the world were 100% safe I'd be out a job.

[harry51]

Beyond code enforcement issues involving personalities, which generally have little to do with the actual intent of the code provisions and everything to do with attitudes and turf perceptions, for me the most aggravating part of trying to work within the rules is when something that is proven to work and is blessed in one code, for instance the IPC, is prohibited or allowed only by special permission under another code, such as the UPC. Examples of conflict between codes are the use of air admittance valves for venting drain plumbing, wet venting, the number of bends allowable before a cleanout is required, etc.

I recognize that codes are a distillation of wisdom gained by trial and error over time, and I consider that to be a very valuable resource.  I just wish the powers that be would assemble all that wisdom in one place and adopt the least restrictive proven guidelines for us to use.

The other thing that really irritates me is the fact that the code books are so expensive. IMO, anything that's a law or an enforceable regulation should be freely available to all, and easy to access.

[hhbartlett]

...
The other thing that really irritates me is the fact that the code books are so expensive. IMO, anything that's a law or an enforceable regulation should be freely available to all, and easy to access.

^This.

It's 2012. We all have internet. Put the damn code online, for free. I can't go by rules I don't know about or can't easily look up. It shouldn't be as hard as it is to find out what will fly and what won't.

[Squirl]

It depends on the code.  The IRC published by ICC is the most common in the states that I know. 2012 Free online.  The local government even has a link on its website.  95% would match other building codes, local exceptions always apply.  It's the best resource that I know of, and I use it frequently.  I don't know how to build a certain section of my building, and the books that I bought don't cover it.  A quick click and most of it is outlined.

http://publicecodes.citation.com/icod/irc/2012/index.htm

I wish I could find the same thing for the NEC.

[flyingvan]

  I've found the NEC code book to be inexpensive, readily available at Home Cheapo, and user friendly.  Granted---the most complicated thing I've had to do is 3-way switches....
   My understanding is the feds are in the process of making everything into a single code.  I'm sure it'll be full of exceptions by application (like main entries swinging IN for residential and OUT for business) 
   You bring up an excellent point----there out to be a WIKI building code resource to search specific code questions.  When it's done here we always run into local vs. national issues

[MushCreek]

I don't think you can actually download the code; just read it. That's fine if you're working in an area with internet access. Oddly enough, I WAS able to download NEC 2009 for free, which is the current code in my area. I agree- if you're going to hold me to a certain code, you should provide me with free, unlimited access.