Thread: Son of Code Complying

Who would like to take a shot at this as to what's the reportable defect?
Code # quote please.

Similar Threads:

• Code of ethics planned for property inspections - Stuff.co.nz
• Change to NAHI Code of Ethics
• Code reference for b-vent support
• Code Change
• Need help with code reference

Low voltage and high voltage in same hole/chase?

Thanks Bruce for the quick reply, but no.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Who would like to take a shot at this as to what's the reportable defect?
Code # quote please.

That reads like there is just one defect, to which I disagree, They (reportable defects) are plentiful.

Which area of defects do you want addressed? Electrical, stuctural, blocking, stairway?

Dr. Doctor Watson, how about posting an answer without asking your own?

While I believe there are some concerns about the stairs treads and nosings, I think the point you are making is the structural framing looks to be rough sawn and does not have the required stamp for grade mark of lumbering grading. Section R602.1

Either that or the carpenter is what my father used to call a 'Wood butcher".

Darren, wood buthcher is spot on, but that's not the point I was trying to make. It is not a cosmetic problem, but rather a serious code defect.

Don't bother with the electric conductors you see in the photo, that was a mess and another issue.

Anything other that what we can see supporting the risers?

So far no winners?

Jerry,
This is still in the framing stage? If so I am not seeing it, is it California specific (seismic)?

From the other posts:
The grade stamps might be on the other face or out of the cameras view.

Grain direction, with out the grade stamp who knows if it's running the correct direction.

Stair away from the wall, typical framing in these parts is to put a 2 x 4 spacer between the stringer and the wall to allow the sheetrock and the skirt board to go between the stringer and the studs. Hence the blocking between the studs in line with the stairs.

Best guesses:
Trying to scale off my monitor it appears that there is a 7 " rise and a 10" run, that would be correct for residential. If the treads are temporary there is no violation yet, otherwise it is 2006 IRC Section R311.5.3.3, 3/4" nosing required.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Which area of defects do you want addressed? ... blocking ... ?

I am presuming that WC Jerry is referring to the blocking installed incorrectly, however ... if those stud bays are not intended to be enclosed (such as if this stair went to an unfinished basement), then that blocking would not be required.

There are several problems shown, but I suspect that WC Jerry is keying in on that fireblocking alongside the stair stringer aspect. If so, that fireblocking (if that is what the intent is) is totally wrong and worthless for that purpose, however, if that blocking is solely intended as backing for stair trim and the stud bays are intended to remain open - then the problem is the spacing between the studs and stair as one could step over the tread and get their foot caught in the stud space.

1) Framing problems - but this is not the issue
2) Electrical problems - but this is not the issue
3) No nosing, no radius on stair tread - but this is likely not the issue
4) Fireblocking problems - I suspect this is the issue as there appears to be space left between the stairs and the wall for the drywall installers to slip drywall up between them and enclose the stud spaces, which means there is no proper fireblocking installed.

That's my story and I am sticking with it ... (until convinced otherwise ) ...

WC Jerry, the code quote will come after we figure out *which* issue you are referring to.

EC Jerry, I knew you would show up sooner or later and make the correct choice.

Photo is from a consulting job I had a few years ago in a peninsula city.
86 unit development, 86 framed stairs, all wrong!
Yep, they had to go back after they sheetrocked them all and install FB. per code.
I was not appreciated by the developer. Contractor was nice, of course he got a big extra out of it and the last I heard the developer was going after the architect who was supposed to supervise the construction.

The local jurisdictions took responsibility for missing it you ask? You jest........................................

IRC 302.11 of course you will only see something like this if you're doing progress inspections. Once covered the culprits are usually safe.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

EC Jerry, I knew you would show up sooner or later ...

I've been fidgeting and sitting on my hands, waiting for the other replies.

I was not appreciated by the developer. Contractor was nice, of course he got a big extra out of it and the last I heard the developer was going after the architect who was supposed to supervise the construction.

I wonder what the approved drawings showed, I also wonder was was going through that contractor's mind, the owner's mind, and the architect's mind when the contractor *failed to construct to code minimum even if not shown on the plans* and then *asked for more money to correct their own error* (their own error along with everyone else who did not address it or addressed it incorrectly).

The only way that contractor should be able to get off scott free and get paid for that would be if the drawings and details showed the blocking that way, the contractor submitted RFI's (Request For Information) pointing out the incorrect drawing and was told to 'build it that way anyway' - in that case, the contractor documented that they caught the error, asked for it to be corrected, and they were directed to construct it wrong anyway - with that paper trail, the contractor would be off the hook ... otherwise, at least here, it is also the contractor's responsibility, and mainly the contractor's responsibility, to construct to code if more restrictive than the drawings.

The local jurisdictions took responsibility for missing it you ask? You jest........................................

Yes, they missed it on plan review *if shown incorrectly* on the drawings, but they did not miss it at plan review if not shown. If their inspector missed it ... yeah, not good.

of course you will only see something like this if you're doing progress inspections. Once covered the culprits are usually safe.

I catch stuff like that all the time (exactly as shown in your photo), or the blocking being installed correctly, just leaving some of it out. Way to many ways to really screw construction up and then it gets covered up and is gone ... until a fire happens ...

Anyone seeing houses with all thread rod from foundation to top plate at the roof holding everything down? Yep, just like all other straps which hold the structure down and together ... those are required to be tested and approved as a system - you are not allowed to just run 1/2" all thread with couplers, what is the steel strength, elongation, coupler rating, etc.

I have one builder right now who is trying to find the information he needs on that all thread - so far, no luck. Simpson does make a tested and approved rod tie-down system, there may be other systems too, but the point is that you cannot simply go out and buy 1/2" all thread and use it.

The fireblocking in line with the stringers is no longer required.

California Building Code 717.2.4 Stairways. Fireblocking shall be provided in concealed spaces between stair stringers at the top and bottom of the run. Enclosed spaces under stairs shall also comply with Section 1009.5.3.
It was required under the 1997 UBC and the 2000 IBC but was eliminated in the 2003 IBC.

The 2000 IRC did not require it either, but since this was an apartment building the IRC does not apply.

Furthermore the blocking was only required only when "if the walls under the stairs are unfinished"

shove some insulation in there to block the passage of smoke and flame and call it good!

Fred, your code quote from the 2007 CBC #717.2.4 is correct, but this issue was in 2005 and fell under the 2001 CBC #708.2.1 (3) which states; Fire blocking shall be provided in concealed spaces between stair stringers at the top and bottom of the run and between studs along and in line with the run of stairs if the walls under the stairs are unfinished.

BTW, those units where 2 story townhomes, not apartments. California went 6 years between the 2001 and 2007 CBC then adopted the IRC in 2010 with numerous amendments and called it the CRC, which did not become effective until Jan. 1, 2011. Go figure?

PS: Brian is correct as 2010 CRC 302.11.1.1 covers that.

WC Jerry,

What is your definition of a "floor"?

(Yep ... that is a loaded question. )

EC Jerry, I'll play.

Floor; A floor is the walking surface of a room or vehicle. Floors vary from simple dirt in a cave to many-layered surfaces using modern technology. Floors may be stone, wood, bamboo, metal, or any other material that can hold a person's weight. The levels of a building are often referred to as floors. Floors typically consist of a subfloor for support and a floor covering used to give a good walking surface. In modern buildings the subfloor often has electrical wiring, plumbing, and other services built in. Because floors meet many needs, some essential to safety, floors are built to strict building codes in the first world. Wikipedia.

Floor; The lower surface of room., any level area, all the rooms etc., on the same level of a building; a story. Oxford American Dictionat of Current English.

Floor Area is the area included that the surrounding exterior walls of a building or portion thereof, exclusive of vent shafts and courts. The floor area of a building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. Now if you want to go to Floor; Gross or Net it gets a little more complicated. 1985, 1988, 1991, & 1997 UBC.

What did I win?

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Floor; A floor is the walking surface of a ...

What did I win?

You won the stair floor you walk on to go up or down the stair.

Now, fireblocking is required where?

EC Jerry; Fireblocking per California Residential Code 2010 per Section 302.11. I will only answer to California Residential Codes and abdicate the other 49 states to you.

I'm still waiting to know what I won?

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

EC Jerry; Fireblocking per California Residential Code 2010 per Section 302.11. I will only answer to California Residential Codes ...

R302.11.1.1 requires fireblocking at floor levels.

I'm still waiting to know what I won?

You won the stair floor ...

Gentlemen,

I posted this on another thread; but I'll post it again.