CountryPlans Forum

  Somebody else here noticed a trend of owner/builders trying to work around the building codes....I'm by no stretch a pro-regulation guy and think it's killing our economy on many fronts, but building codes are a different animal.  They come from mistakes learned in failed structures, good science, and tempered by developers not wanting to spend more than they have to.  Building codes represent a MINIMUM, designed around a 30 year lifespan.  Raise your hand if you've ever lived in a structure more than 30 years old.
  I believe as owner builders we should be targeting 100 years.  I want my grandchildren to tell their kids I built this place, and have them looking at a straight walled warm structure where the toilets flush properly.
   Overbuilding, instead of underbuilding, is a huge advantage.  Example---you're trying to decide whether to frame with 2x4's or 2x6's.  Since you are building ONE unit, the difference in cost is negligible, and you end up with a stiffer structure with thicker insulation, where you can run your pipes and wires deep enough that siding nails can't reach them.  It's superior in every way.  If you were planning on building 3,000 units, that $200 you are saving would add up to serious cash and you'll build to the very edge of the minimums in not just the framing, but everything else.  Without the watchful eye of an inspector, you could even frame with 2x3's.  If your goal is to build a place as inexpensive as possible, go ahead.  Just remember the biggest expense for a house is the labor and you're providing that for free so why cut back on materials?

    So here's a question.  Can you come up with some building codes you think are unreasonable?  Just completely arbitrary rules that are only there to make life heck for owner/builders?

   The only one I can come up with is the requirement for handrails to be 42" high.  It looks and feels odd and I suspect it's one of those things that got adopted from the commercial building code into the residential

Sprinklers!

Another that comes to mind is the latest revision with spindle spacing on railings.  I can't recall what the measurement was, but it used to be it needed to be narrow enough so that ambulatory-age children couldn't get their heads between the spindles.  Now it's more like premature infants.  d*
I don't think they're in place to annoy builders.  I think they're there to protect home-owners from less scrupulous builders who would try to cut too many corners.

However, building to code and building to safe and square aren't necessarily the same thing.  Nor does working around some codes mean someone is going to end up with an inferior home. 

BTW, this place has always had people who try to work around building codes.  Shoot, John has plans posted for a Jefferson staircase (which isn't even remotely to code).

QuoteRaise your hand if you've ever lived in a structure more than 30 years old.

Me.  I grew up in a 1914 Craftsman that my folks still own (and are currently remodeling...again).  It's not at all to code, but it was straight, square and mostly-safe for almost 100 years...
In adulthood, my husband and I have lived in a dozen homes.  The youngest of which was 50 years.  Not a one of them would pass a modern inspection, but they were all snug, safe, and dry.

   Sorry, as a fireman I disagree with you 100% about sprinklers.  They keep small fires small, which keeps the neighbor's houses from burning down.  Our department responds to quite a few incidents where you show up and a sprinkler is spraying on the charred remains of a burned up couch---that would have spread  quickly to the people sleeping upstairs.  The argument against sprinklers in my forest was, they wouldn't have saved my house from a forest fire.  That is true.  The forest fires that start as house fires, though, are no longer common.
   Spindle spacing is 'such that a 4" sphere cannot pass through any point'.  Not sure if that's just San Diego County or UBC.  I do wish I had more latitude in stair and rail design.  Your code may have a stricter requirement, or maybe they are concerned about pets?

    Your older craftsman style house may be 'existing non-conforming' in many ways, my point though is building codes are a minimum---don't build to just meet code, build to meet the test of time--like your craftsman home.

In general, my feeling is that the codes aren't too bad provided they are interpreted sensibly.  There are lots of ways that you can technically violate the code without violating the spirit and these situations are where a reasonable interpretation by officials makes all of the difference.

The only part of the code that really annoyed me was the California Title 24 lighting fixtures - lots of places where you need to put fixtures that only take low energy (essentially square-base fluorescent) bulbs or use dimmers.  But by far the most cost-effective way of doing low-efficiency lighting is regular fixtures and screw-base CFLs, which mostly don't work with dimmers anyway! GU-24 bases and dimmable LED bulbs have made this all a bit more sane but you still end up jumping through expensive hoops to achieve what you could easily do using normal fixtures and cheapo screw-base CFLs/LEDs.  And given they're phasing out incandescent bulbs anyway the whole thing is completely stupid!!!

One of my next tasks is to rebuild the square-base fluorescent cans in the kitchen and porch.  The square-base fluorescent bulbs take too long to warm up when the cabin's cold and I want screw bases so I can use LED bulbs.  This involves stripping out all the $35 electronic ballasts and throwing them away, and buying new cans so I can use the guts for the retrofit. 

Poly with rock under my cabin extension was a complete waste of time IMO.

# of outlets per wall is silly also.

Code in my new home now requires that all attached garages are insulated and drywalled and taped, althought i kinda like having a warm garage in our -30C winters.

Poly with rock?  Is that a local code?

not sure, never knew such a thing existed until I spoke with the inspector and he gave me a list of what he wanted to see on the extension.

He was adamant about Poly with crushed rock under the extension.

Something about ground smells.  The rest of the cabin doesnt have such a thing.

Quote# of outlets per wall is silly also.

The US NEC calls for a receptacle every 12 feet with special rules for kitchens. Is that the same in Canada?  Personally there have been many times I have wished the spacing was more like 6 to 8 feet.  Another example I think of the minimum code requirement being insufficient in some cases. It's not that more receptacles are actually needed; it's that in many cases one is behind the heavy sofa and hard to reach. Or behind the waterbed headboard.

I'm familiar with the code citation in the ICC.

http://publicecodes.citation.com/icod/irc/2009/icod_irc_2009_4_sec008.htm

http://publicecodes.citation.com/icod/irc/2009/icod_irc_2009_4_sec008_par002.htm

With the ICC, it is a choice, ventilate or class 1 vapor retarder.  I went with ventilation.

Quote from: flyingvan on May 25, 2012, 12:02:59 PM
   Sorry, as a fireman I disagree with you 100% about sprinklers.   

You are welcome to do so.  You asked for opinions, I gave mine.   :)
Fortunately, my state has exempted single family dwellings from that requirement and my county doesn't enforce codes anyway...We don't even have zoning. Nor do we have neighbors whose house would burn if ours went up.

QuoteSpindle spacing is 'such that a 4" sphere cannot pass through any point'.

Precisely.  And that's just stupid. Four inches is barely bigger than a PostIt!  What on earth are they worried is going through there??

   

QuoteYour older craftsman style house may be 'existing non-conforming' in many ways, my point though is building codes are a minimum---don't build to just meet code, build to meet the test of time--like your craftsman home.

That's my point as well. 
"The test of time" doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with code...  My folks' house is a beautiful, old house that would never be approved today.

QuoteAnd that's just stupid. Four inches is barely bigger than a PostIt!  What on earth are they worried is going through there??

I'm not positive, but I believe I'm correct in stating that the idea is to prevent a young child's body from slipping through and then hanging there by their head.


And as for old homes not meeting present day code that's fine. Nobody is forcing them to be brought up to date, though when renovations reach a certain point it is common to require updating to current standards. There may be some exceptions in some places. OR for example, requires removal of old non EPA conforming wood stoves before a home is sold, IIRC.

I am likely the poster that commented about building codes that spurred this post.  I commented on another thread where someone was asking about something plumbing related and I commented that codes exist for a reason and I did not understand the mindset behind trying to get around it in the context presented.

I wound up deleting the comment because after re-reading it I got the impression that my comment was attacking the poster and that was not my intent.  I have nothing but respect for the folks here at CP and don't really want to come off as some know it all about things I really am not a know it all about. 

Building codes have their place, but common sense does as well.  I am not a die-hard pull the permit, pay the man, adhere to every code no matter what kind of guy.  In fact I am quite the opposite.  I have done dozens of projects at home and in my place in the country.  I have never filed for a permit in my life, and I do not ever intend to.  My country place does not fall under city, and their is no code enforcement, my city residence does fall under code -- but I strongly believe that I have the right to do as I choose and do so. 

My comment was with the mindset of some folks that say, I know this is wrong, but it would be a lot of work to do it right, so I am going to do it wrong anyway - what do you think?  Invariably comments show up saying, you know those rules exist for a reason and you might want to reconsider.  Then the blowback where people defend their thinking citing rediculous things like my neighbor has his house on rocks, or when I was a kid in the dust bowl we built houses out of mud and we were fine. 

I don't think any of that helps build the community this site is about.  I do not think that knowing something is wrong, and ignoring it but trying to look for validation is helpful in a building forum.  I personally want to build for longevity, at either places I am working on.  For example, I never pulled a permit for my patio covered porch, but after Hurricane Ike passed and my patio covering was intact and I know of 5 "contractor built" permitted patios that blew away, I kinda think the whole do it to code thing is just another BS money grab. 

You do not need some government goon to tell you how to build.  But if you want to build the equivalent of a cardboard box because it's cheaper, don't ask others for their opinion.  You my not like what you hear.  If you are that sure of your choices, just do it and live with the consequences. 

Those consequences can be more than you initially expect.  Like, the house will never pass inspection, thus you will never be able to sell it to a buyer that needs financing.  Like you cannot get the structure insured.  Let's say you leave the place to your kids or spouse .. then they fall under those constraints as well without you there to "keep the bandaids" on.  I just don't think it's a smart move in the longterm. 

I don't know about anyone else, but I have learned that building is a young mans game.  I do not want to be fixing mistakes in 20 years when my knees and back are in worse shape than they are today just because I was able to save 100 bucks.  Build it right, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.  Build something you are proud of.   

     I think I pretty much agree.  It isn't government's job to protect us from ourselves, and you can still buy a house built to code that was built pretty shoddy.  However, I can drive one hour south to Mexico to see what a community without any code enforcement looks like.....There are a few nice areas, but for the most part not good and it doesn't take much of a weather event to cause real problems
     What's interesting is you couldn't hire me to change a light switch since I'm not a contractor, but I CAN design and build an entire house and sell it to you
     Building is a young person's game?  I better stop building or re-define young---I've got two more houses planned
   

"My comment was with the mindset of some folks that say, I know this is wrong, but it would be a lot of work to do it right, so I am going to do it wrong anyway "


I think a key distinction that is applicable to this site, is the difference between building it differently, ...then advice, opinions, codes..... not necessarily cheaper, although it may be.

I too have the utmost respect for the people who give advice on here...but it is just advice and when it is all considered and processed one has to do what they think is best for them.  if you disregard it all, then no sense in asking. But, if you amalgamate the advice and what you find other places and evaluate that with your own wishes and knowledge you get what you want, not what someone else thinks is the way to do it. Codes and regulations have to fit a wide variety of circumstances, so while they are a good base, you have to customize for yourself and I think that is a lot of what this site is all about.  As I have said before, I have had people who differed with my ideas, but then come back and help with them. In other instances, I have seen "advice" when questioned turn into a lecture on cost/quality, etc....more of less, "you are wrong and I will prove it".

Quote from: muldoon on May 25, 2012, 10:33:11 PM
snip......................
Building codes have their place, but common sense does as well.......snip

Oh how I agree.  However I have a buddy.  Great guy, lot of common sense.   Many times I had to trust his judgement on the railroad for my safety and others.  On the railroad stupid people do not live and they kill others.  In Nam my buddy was a Chinook crew chief and knew his stuff.  He had a cool head when ever I worked with him.  Not stupid until the great cement pour.  Point and only point is common sense applies so long as you understand what you are working with and how it works. 

As I used to says, "When in doubt build it stout."  Then I seen Peg post "When in doubt build it stout with something you know about."  That made so much more sense.  Because one mans stout is not another mans stout nor right.

Code goes a lot further than just dwellings falling down around your ears.  There is the matters of safety, injury and real lives being lost.  As far as sprinklers in homes.  I feel some what hypocritical.  We do not have them, however I think they are a good idea.  Especially in two story dwellings.  Why?  Because I have felt the pain.  I lost a close childhood friend in a fire, an old two story farm house.  I was in and out off that house thousands of times, played a million hours there so it seemed.  It was the house her mom grew up in as well.  She had just purchased it back from another family.  It was one of those old classic two story farm houses, it had one of those old steep narrow stairways.  There was no - now 'legal egress' from that room.  The electrical caught fire somewhere in the up stairs.  They said most likely a ceiling light.

Several neighbors received bad burns and smoke inhalation  trying to get her out.  The fire department when they got there got it out.  However they had a rough time in the narrow stairway and no room to work.  The tall walls without any real fire blocks were sort of a conduit pulling gases up in to the upstairs where she was at so the firemen told us.  I think I was twelve or fourteen at the time.  I think it would have been easier on all of us if the $%^#@#% old  house would have just burned to the ground.  We have looked to buy property and a couple had house similar and I would not even look at them.  Just drive on Mister Realtor Man just drive on.  Old wounds like that are hard to heal.

Then I look at codes and rules and laws of building and permits.  I do not like being told what to do as much as the next person.  But how many Shannon's and others would have been here today...........  I can not help from just wondering what if......   
               

QuoteI'm not positive, but I believe I'm correct in stating that the idea is to prevent a young child's body from slipping through and then hanging there by their head.

No, the OLD code (pre'97 IBC, if I'm thinking right) was something like 6" and THAT was to prevent a young child from slipping through.  But 4" is just downright ridiculous. 
Like I said, that's just a smidge bigger than a Post-It.  At this rate, in another 20 years it'll have to be solid.  No gaps at all!

QuoteFor example, I never pulled a permit for my patio covered porch, but after Hurricane Ike passed and my patio covering was intact and I know of 5 "contractor built" permitted patios that blew away, I kinda think the whole do it to code thing is just another BS money grab.

Which is precisely my point.  Building to code and building to safe and square aren't necessarily the same thing.  Obviously there is a lot of overlap, but in some cases (the 4" spindle gap as an example) code is just silly...

    Building to code, I think, is the absolute minimum.  Going way past what's required is commendable.  There are some building techniques that are probably superior to common practice, but the code just hasn't addressed them---here in San Diego they make what I think is a reasonable provision for that----get an engineer's stamp.  I had to do that for two different issues---One, a deck beam that cantilevered out more than the typical 1/3, and two, the sheer transfer methods used to allow lots of windows on the view side.
     If nothing else, the codes make a pretty good checklist to make sure I didn't miss anything.
     I agree with the California Title 24 lighting requirements being unreasonable.  People should be able to choose for themselves how efficient their lighting is.  Not really a structural issue

QuoteBuilding to code, I think, is the absolute minimum.  Going way past what's required is commendable.

So you're planning on putting rail spindles closer than 4 inches?
(Why?)
Your sill plate washers are larger than 3"? 
You're installing more sprinklers than required?

And then we start looking at things where going beyond "code" is detrimental. 
For example, too many nails weaken the structure of the lumber.  Or better, I can think of several conversations where people have said they were going to go with screws instead of nails, thinking they were going above and beyond code.  Not realizing that screws are actually weaker than nails when in stress applications.  And so on and so forth.

So often I've seen people make that blanket statement "code is a minimum" without stopping to consider how MUCH is in the various codes.  There is no way on earth ANYONE is building greater than code in their entire structure.  It wouldn't make any sense. 

Do you see what I mean?

How about putting electrical in a cabin that doesn't have electicity even to the mountain the cabin is on.  d*

Quote from: suburbancowboy on May 26, 2012, 07:22:50 PM
How about putting electrical in a cabin that doesn't have electicity even to the mountain the cabin is on.  d*

Agreed. Was originally told by the building inspector that even with a battery and 12V setup, he wanted outlets in each wall, panel, ground rods, etc. I asked why on earth that would be necessary, to which he replied, "someone someday could upgrade the cabin to 120V in and I'd like to think it wouldn't cost you much extra". If the dwelling will be lived in it must have electric. If it has electric, it must be to code. There is nothing specific noting any differences between 12V and 120V. Brilliant.

Although not the case upstate NY, I've heard tales of minimum size requirements. Want a hunting camp? Great, it will be a big one. Want smaller? Better put up your tent.  Lastly, even here, there are minimum septic requirements that greatly exceed the use. Example: occasional use seasonal one room hunting camp. Want a toilet? You'll need to drop a big septic tank and two 60ft leeching pipes. Better just get a shovel and talk a walk.

Erin---

Yes!
 
  My 'spindles'  (I think you mean balusters) will be re-purposed weathered fence stakes, 2 1/2" wide with 3" spacing.  THey look great.
  My plate washers are 3" but spaced a lot more frequently than required.  This house is taller than it is wide, with heavy wind loads and seismic activity.
  I'm installing three more sprinklers than required.  Actually you can install too many and create a situation where they are too close together and you keep one from activating if needed...I added them in closets and under the house in case I ever use the crawlspace for storage.
   Adding all this up, the three examples you gave come to (ballpark) $45. 

   My sheer panel and roof decking are both thicker than required.  Every structural beam is one size larger.  My post to beams have stainless steel rodding drilled through.  My nail schedule is much more frequent than required.   I added radiant barrier anywhere sunlight will hit (except where airflows were needed)
 
   Not much extra expense.  Great thing is my inspector trusts my construction and inspections are a breeze. 
   Best thing about being an owner/builder is doing things like you want.  I certainly wouldn't look down my nose at anyone building to the minimums---it's still a heck of a lot of work to take on.  My opinion is, for a little extra money and a little more effort, you can end up with a much better home.   Trying to get by below the minimums and do things a cheal as possible seems to me to be a waste of a lot of hard work.
    You're right---there are places for screws, but not in framing.  Flexibility of a structure is important, and screws don't bend---they're brittle compared to nails.  I think you'd have to really add a lot more nails before you'd weaken the lumber though. 

If the codes are meant to help you withstand a lot more than the worst thing that can affect your house.....within reason. Say 150% of the minimum. And you build for an additional 20%, what does that get you except bragging rights?  You still cannot withstand the ultimate event. 

But you have used resources you don't need.  Not a very environmentally sound way to build.  I can afford to leave my water run all night, not bad for me, but not good for others.  so, calculating everything on the "just a few dollars more" scale does not work for us a a group..only for you.

Well, that's one side of the things you're balancing against.  I think just getting a structure up is bragging rights enough.  A solid structure has a solid feel, for one.  I'm planning hundred year structures second. 
Here's a picture to defend 'overbuilding'--
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7UaKc2k_Heo/SK7svFSXrPI/AAAAAAAAAc0/PUUoELS9-Wk/s400/cedar2.jpg)

  This was my first owner/builder project.  I went all out to overbuild and to make it fire-resistive.  At the beginning of the week there were 134 homes in Cuyamaca---by the end of the week there were 17.  The Cedar Fire wiped them all out--my two houses remained.  (other than yard damage and one cracked window)

   Environmental concerns---if you believe that atmospheric carbon load (CO2) influences weather in a negative way (I do not.  If you'd like to debate THAT, there are better places than this building site though) consider that every ounce of lumber represents carbon taken not from the ground, but from the air around us.  Taking wood and preserving it in the form of a useful structure binds up a whole lot of CO2 for a very long time and will be re-released either very slowly by termites and rot or very quickly by fire.  If you believe the whole carbon footprint rhetoric, build houses with as much heavy timber as you can, lock up that carbon, and trees will be grown in their place to lock up more carbon.   'overbuilding' and protecting from the elements and fire further extend the time you are keeping all that carbon tied up and out of the air.  (each pound of wood is about two pounds of CO2 taken from the air)
    Consider also the environmental impact of a hundred year structure versus a 30 year structure.  If the 100 year structure takes 15-20% more material, but can house people more than 3 times longer, isn't that a positive impact?  How much landfill is taken up by a demolished home, that now has to be rebuilt with 100% more materials, 2.33 times (assuming of course you always have a structure on the same spot that gets replaced every 30 years.  In reality it happens incrementally through additions and remodels)
   

I do not think building a fire resistive structure in a fire prone area is overbuilding... just good sense.  Seems to me it points out some flaws in the "code" though.

Clearing the land around the place likely has as much to do with it as anything.  Do codes include that?

As for environmental...it has many more considerations than carbon load, but your logic on CO2 stuff is flawed..not on the "believe it or not" stuff but on the things you use to defend "locking it up". None of that works from a scientific basis or a practical one. sounds like timber industry propaganda.

Deforestation is taking place all over the world and trees are not being replaced to match the logging....not to mention the habitat destruction that is for the most part irreversible. I realize that all this is beyond the scope of this site to "solved", but it should be recognized as a factor in what we do.

QuoteMy opinion is, for a little extra money and a little more effort, you can end up with a much better home.   Trying to get by below the minimums and do things a cheal as possible seems to me to be a waste of a lot of hard work.

You're still falling for the notion that "code" is somehow connected to "quality"...  ;)

Monticello wasn't "to code" for the first couple hundred years of its life.  Does that mean it wasn't a quality structure before it was brought up to code (because it's now a public building?)


Also, I think what alex was driving at is that "building to code" is already overbuilt.  Which is true. 
There is a lot of redundancy in the various codes for a reason.  They exist to protect people, afterall.  Joist sizing, for example, is more than adequate as prescribed.  I mean, if you want to go beyond that, have at it.  But there's really no reason you have to.   (beyond deflection, of course, which is more of a preference than safety issue)
Nor does it somehow mean your structure is going to be longer-lived than the one that didn't.  Strong enough is strong enough.  More than that is still going to be "strong enough." 

Having grown up in a 100 year old house (and spent most of my life surrounded by them), it's been my observation that the initial construction isn't what determines the lifespan of a house...it's the on-going, faithful, maintenance.

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.

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.
(http://www.nachi.org/images08/framing.jpg)
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.

  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

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......

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;

Quoteif 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  d*, 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.

  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.

 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.

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.  :D

    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.

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.  ;) )

QuoteMy 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.     ::)

   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

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!!!

(https://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee389/u9138/TahoeBoatHouse.jpg)

QuoteTimber 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  :D 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  :(.

"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.

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.

QuoteA 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?

  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?

Quotein 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  :D) 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?

Quote from: Squirl on May 29, 2012, 08:16:09 AM
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.

Quote from: Squirl on May 29, 2012, 08:16:09 AM
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...

Quote from: Squirl on May 29, 2012, 08:16:09 AM
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: harry51 on June 05, 2012, 11:48:41 PM
...
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.

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.

  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

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.

It can be printed for when working away from the internet.  I do it every so often.  I believe even adobe's free version lets you print it to an electronic file.

Most laws are the same way, with Westlaw holding the corner of the market on most of the publishing of the laws and codes in the U.S..  They have only recently even brought the GPO access for CFR and U.S. Code almost up to date.

Where did you find the NEC for free?

Oops- it's Nec 2008 that I found for free.  d*  I think this is where I got it:

http://flmsdown.net/ebooks/29899-2008-national-electrical-code.html

For some reason my Mcafee software said that this is a risky site. I am not that knowledgable in these matters so I can't say for sure what is going on.
Bruce

@Dan Fish: Careful what you put on the internet! That's not very nice picking on your neighbors' pier!:) Just kidding. But seriously, we don't have the money that others may have to make a super duper pier. Believe me, we'd make a nice pier like you did if we did have the money! Plus, the boathouse didn't fall off its pier because of the weak pier, it fell of because of the pilings which are under historic protection and could not be changed. Well, guess what? We can change it now!;)