| Posted By |
|
|
|
| | |
|
austin, tx
Posts: 3
Joined: Oct, 2011
|  offline
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
Lafayette, Louisiana
Posts: 3846
Joined: Nov, 2009
| offline
|
|
 code riddle
[#2] Posted: 10/26/2011 - 1:57:55 PM |  |  |
|
I'm not a code inspector but as I understand codes, an engineer's design triumphs code, so yes it seems compliant just as the AHJ seemed to indicate.
Marc
|
"If Guam gets too overpopulated, it might tip over."
Congressman Hank Johnson (D) GA |
| |
|
|
| |
 |
Georgetown, KY
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mar, 2002
| offline
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
austin, tx
Posts: 3
Joined: Oct, 2011
| offline
|
|
code riddle
[#4] Posted: 10/26/2011 - 5:22:25 PM | | |
|
thank you both for your response. My client had his roof inspected and the roofing inspector measured the slope and then told my client that the roof was not designed and built to code...so the client claims that I breached contract by not building something to code...other than that he has no leaks or claim. It sounds improbable but that is the story.
|
| |
|
|
| |
 |
Evergreen Park (Chicago), IL
Posts: 1539
Joined: Apr, 2004
| offline
|
|
code riddle
[#5] Posted: 10/26/2011 - 6:41:35 PM | | |
|
The manufacturer of the TPO will more than likely have installation specs. Did you follow them? If you did or didn't I can't see why it's a code issue after 5 years. It could be a warranty issue.
|
Mike Lamb
http://www.inspection2020.com/ |
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Georgetown, KY
Posts: 2172
Joined: Mar, 2002
| offline
|
|
code riddle
[#6] Posted: 10/26/2011 - 8:24:28 PM | | |
|
So your client is listening to the roof inspector, who doesn't have access to all the documentation you have.
You need to prove your point.
Get the engineer & architect that designed the building involved.
Get the code guy that inspected the building and approved it involved.
Nip it in the bud before the lawyers get involved.
|
-
Erby Crofutt
B4U Close Home Inspections
Georgetown, KY
www.b4uclose.com
www.kentuckyhomeinspections.com
https://www.facebook.com/B4UCl...pections
Kentucky Home Inspections
Kentucky Home Inspectors
502-570-4054 |
| |
|
|
| |
 |
Gaston, Oregon
Posts: 8080
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
code riddle
[#7] Posted: 10/26/2011 - 10:59:56 PM | | |
|
| Quote: Originally posted by jdh1558
We designed and installed a TPO roof on a new contemporary residence. Because of aesthetic reasons we used 1/8" per foot for slope. The project utilizes interior roof drains and tapered insulation over steel deck and structure. The slope runs are all less than 30 feet and there is no ponding. The roof has performed as intended for 5 years, the structure was designed by an engineer for this slope. The residential building official for the city said that this was fine..." as long as the structure was design properly, the roof drains properly and the roof system was intended for the application, there is no minimum slope." Furthermore we understand that the 301.1.2 from the IRC 2000 supports this position. Does this roof meet code? Should there be any cause for concern based on the information that I have shared?
Start with this:
R104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction
and equipment. The provisions of this code are not
intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit
any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed
by this code, provided that any such alternative has
been approved. An alternative material, design or method of
construction shall be approved where the building official finds
that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the
intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material,
method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the
equivalent of that prescribed in this code. Compliance with the
specific performance-based provisions of the International
Codes in lieu of specific requirements of this code shall also be
permitted as an alternate.
It's important to remember that the residential code is a sort of quick & easy how-to code for small residential buildings. It provides streamlined prescriptive methods for the simple everyday buildings that residential builders build. But there's nothing that says a builder has to follow it. If he wished to, he could choose to adhere to the performance based IBC. It would entail lots of engineering and professional design, and would cost lots of money, but he could do it.
You chose to walk away from the prescriptive method in favor of a designed method. That's fine.
|
Jim Katen, Oregon
www.amipdx.com |
| |
|
|
| | |
|
Redondo Beach, California
Posts: 304
Joined: Oct, 2008
| offline
|
|
code riddle
[#8] Posted: 10/28/2011 - 3:02:30 PM | | |
|
I dont have access to my codes right now but off the top of my head you can refer to to the IBC CH. 15 1510.1 Reroofing. it states something to the effect that if a roof has less than code required slope but is hydro active meaning it sheads water no slope correction is required. I believe it was adopted into the IBC about 2003
|
| |
|
|
| |
 |
Atlanta, GA
Posts: 394
Joined: Jan, 2007
| offline
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
Gaston, Oregon
Posts: 8080
Joined: Dec, 2003
| offline
|
|
code riddle
[#10] Posted: 10/28/2011 - 7:17:47 PM | | |
|
Quote: Originally posted by resqmanQuote: Originally posted by Rocon
I dont have access to my codes right now but off the top of my head you can refer to to the IBC CH. 15 1510.1 Reroofing. it states something to the effect that if a roof has less than code required slope but is hydro active meaning it sheads water no slope correction is required. I believe it was adopted into the IBC about 2003
Teriffic but IBC is for commercial buildings. Original post stated residentidal building. That woud be the IRC.
You always have the option of reverting to the IBC.
"Compliance with the
specific performance-based provisions of the International
Codes in lieu of specific requirements of this code shall also be
permitted as an alternate."
The IRC exists because it's convenient for home builders. It's not meant to supercede the IBC.
|
Jim Katen, Oregon
www.amipdx.com |
| |
|
| |
|
|
