Irc 501.3 (I-Joists To Be Sheetrocked)

[Kbird1]

Kbird1, on 29 May 2015 - 12:34 PM, said:

 One would hope nobody is taking 10 hay bales into their basement and setting fire to them , and even if they did the smoke alarms would be going crazy, around here there aren't any unfinished basements , people always need the space , so this is one I am unlikely to ever run into ,seems like another case of allowing for that 1 in a Million chance. 

Wouldn't you run into this all the time on the 2nd floor?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The burning Hay Bales ?    just joking ...no I wouldn't ever see this as everything has to be drywalled (1/2hr or 1hr rated) anyway being fully finished , new homes here have to be sprinkled too along with Renos if deemed large enough % wise that the home is essentially new.  Unfinished basements I know are common in a lot of places though due to Cost, and that space is used for storage , so I can only guess there was an "incident" and somebody got sued or a whole lot worse, hence the new Regs.

[HumbleChief]

That was a pretty interesting demo. It almost looked the I-Joists were burning of their own accord and the lumber need the pallets and other stuff underneath to really get them burning.

 

As far as safety goes, it's impossible to take life, which is inherently unsafe, and make it totally safe.

 

Regulation is good, up to a point IMO. The art is knowing where that point is - AND - we still take our #$% shoes off at the #$@$ airport - I rest my case.

[Richard_Morrison]

I am all for the government staying out of areas of our lives where we can take personal responsibility for the results of our actions. However, a house is not of those. Decisions about materials and construction affect the life-safety of people who usually don't get a say in the matter: spouses, children, friends, neighbors, future owners, and a firefighter who might need to walk across your unprotected TJIs.

[dshall]

I am all for the government staying out of areas of our lives where we can take personal responsibility for the results of our actions. However, a house is not of those. Decisions about materials and construction affect the life-safety of people who usually don't get a say in the matter: spouses, children, friends, neighbors, future owners, and a firefighter who might need to walk across your unprotected TJIs.

Let's not stop there, after all, 2x12 joists burn too,. Let's require concrete walls, floors and roofs, they will never burn.

[Jay_on_Cape]

This is so true..... 

 

I am not sure what the big stink is here i.....  I assume you want the basement finished or you will soon,  so put 5/8" type x gyp and you are done.  To take it a step further,  here in  CA,  land of the fruits and nuts,  we have to sprinkle all new buildings.

 

I would rather use TJI's  (stronger)  and put the type x on the underside....  does not seem like a big deal,  what am I missing?

The code actually allows you to use 1/2" non type X as well as letting you not tape it. 

 

In this area most lots are flat or mostly flat so therefore it wouldn't be a walkout basement meaning about 98% of our houses the basements are not finished.  Sheetrocking the joists adds about $1.10 a square foot or about $1700 for our typical colonial or about $2600 for a ranch.  Have you seen the amount of plumbing / hvac in a basement in areas where it is common to run this in the basement?  A complete cluster fudge.....

 

 Using sheetrock it is actually easier to rock the webs rather than the bottom flange (see above).  The whiny plumber (he's not happy unless he's miserable and with him now drilling through 2 layers of rock he's the proverbial pig in......mud) really loves this...

 

 I agree about the I-joists.  It greatly minimizes callbacks.

[Jay_on_Cape]

Don't they want you to 1/2" drywall the sides of the joists also.

One or the other.  Either both sides of the web or the bottom of the bottom flange.

[Richard_Morrison]

I have one of those fans on all the time, so quiet you don't even notice and creates a negative air pressure so every time you open a window or door air rushes in. Penny says she likes the fresh air unless its too hot out. Those days are when I can foul up the air the best.

 

This situation can actually be fairly dangerous, and a reason why the Code requires makeup air.

 

http://pureairplus.com/nap.htm

[DRAWZILLA]

Thanks for the info, I usually have something open all day to bring in fresh air, of course unless it's 110 deg. outside.

[Alaskan_Son]

I am all for the government staying out of areas of our lives where we can take personal responsibility for the results of our actions. However, a house is not of those. Decisions...affect the life-safety of people who usually don't get a say in the matter: spouses, children, friends, neighbors...

 

This logic can be dangerous...You could say the same about nearly everything we do.  Plus, fire codes are essentially planning for something that should never happen.  Should we be forced to install bulletproof glass too just in case of a drive by shooting?  Left unchecked it will NEVER stop.  You can always one-up it, and some will do just that if they have their way.  

 

Less than a century ago 30 year mortgages were unheard of, today they are the norm.  By my research, on average a house could be purchased for anywhere in the neighborhood of 25%-200% of the average household income.  Today, that 200% is closer to a starting point, and 30 year mortgages aren't cutting it, we started resorting to sub-prime mortgages, people regularly take out a second, reverse mortgages, and as if that wasn't enough, the fed had to drop the interest rate to record lows...what can they do next, 50 year mortgages? 

 

Fact is, this over regulation is unsustainable, every year it seems they're adding new rules to the books that add thousands to the cost of building and maintaining a home.  We can't even go in and fix an existing home without bringing everything we touch up to code. 

 

We try to do things right and to code, we're one of the few builders/remodelers around here who design and install makeup air systems in the kitchens we build, who have EPA RRP certification, pull the required permits, etc.  and I'm not exaggerating when I say the vast majority of our clients are millionaires.  They're about the only ones who can afford to do the job "right" and "safe".  Sadly I'm starting to see why there are so many bitter old men who couldn't care less about the rules anymore and just do what they want...no permits, no certifications, no insurance, no license..."Chuck in a truck".  That's who the average person is hiring to do their remodel work, and for new homes...Many of those are being built by low balling contractors who don't pay their subs or their suppliers half the time...And guess who ends up footing that bill in the end...

 

I know I can't convince guys like you or guys like Bryce, but if I can help keep a few people from joining your ranks...

[Richard_Morrison]

Here's the problem with your argument, Michael. You don't get to whine about the cost of homes skyrocketing without including the fact that houses are FAR larger than they were 40 years ago. The inflation-adjusted cost per square foot hasn't changed that much. People just want more and more square footage, but complain when the total price for it is also more.  Boohoo.

 

https://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-the-living-space-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-40-years/

[Jay_on_Cape]

Here's the problem with your argument, Michael. You don't get to whine about the cost of homes skyrocketing without including the fact that houses are FAR larger than they were 40 years ago. The inflation-adjusted cost per square foot hasn't changed that much. People just want more and more square footage, but complain when the total price for it is also more.  Boohoo.

 

https://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-the-living-space-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-40-years/

Richard,

 

    Your link cited the growth of living space per person.  That is by personal choice and freedom.  If you want a 4,000 sq. ft. home for your 4 member family that's great, that's your choice.  If you are a poor 4 member family and choose to attempt to build a minimal home with an incredible amount of over regulation that is not by choice.  I don't recall the check boxes on my last building permit application allowing me to forego the following regulations enacted just in the past few years.

 

 110 mph checklist compliance or engineered for 110 mph windzone, insulation values going from R-11 in walls to R-21. Ceiling R values now up to R-49 from R-30 etc.  New homes so tight they need a fan running constantly to provide fresh air. Mandatory blower door testing of all new homes. Of course not to mention the joist covering now required.  That alone just added 1% to a new home.

 

 I won't bore you with all that's required when in a 110 wind zone but the hundreds if not thousands of homes in this area (Cape Cod) built in the 18th or 19 century that still are intact thriving kind of make you wonder. We actually have a number of wood frame homes here built in the 17th century. These survived with typical wood frame and wood clad construction not masonry.

 

  Michael was "whining" about over regulation (mandatory) not your red herring - larger square footage (choice).  You live in California, birthplace of over regulation.  You should know the distinction.........

 

 Whenever I hear someone say "they don't build them like they used to" I always say "got that right, we have building codes now"...

[Greg_NY61]

TJI joist manufacturers started to make TJI joist with what they call  Flak Jacket protection. It's a special coating they apply that provides much better fire resistance and it meets the building  code requirement (the 503.1) so no sheetrock is needed if used on the first floor. They also say that the TJI can be drilled and cut and no special coating needs to be applied to cut area and lalala.The also mention that it will still provide cost efficiency but somehow I doubt that. 

[Greg_NY61]

Just like to add something, the I-joist was invented sometime in 1969, by 2005 probably 1/2 the industry was using I-joist  and 10 years later they just came up with this code?

 

Someone mentioned they switching back to conventional lumber... I never switched to anything else, I have been stick framing all my homes 250k or 1m price tag and I never had any issues, never squeaky floors  if installers know what they doing, etc. So the lumber had tendency to shrink a little... big deal. Everything shrink and everything moves in the house with seasonal change, so I wouldn't worry much. I would worry about Chinese sheetrock which melted all the wiring and duct work in the wall, the Chinese cabinets that people install like its going out fo style, look at the Lumber Liquidators and all that mess with the formaldehyde flooring they been selling... I rather deal with some shrinkage (you know which one LOL) and a few squeaks than worry about all that other crap that we put into our homes.

 

As the fires go, and this video they did, anything will burn under most circumstances, especially when you stack 20 hay bales under the deck 1' from the deck which will never happen in the basement and if you have unconditioned basement the fire can occur at the electrical meter because of wire malfunction or at the furnace or a water heater which would be a gas related, but in that case the whole house would go up. 

 

So how far does this code can go? Today they decided to fire rate TJI's, what is next? 

 

With that said, if you look at Gov statistics most fires on first or second level and hardly ever in the basement. Main source is the kitchen while cooking and kitchen  is also one of the leading causes of injuries from fire. The rest common causes of fires is at night when carelessly discarded cigarettes, sparks from fireplaces being without spark screens or glass doors, and heating appliances left too close to furniture or other combustibles.  

[Alaskan_Son]

Here's the problem with your argument, Michael. You don't get to whine about the cost of homes skyrocketing without including the fact that houses are FAR larger than they were 40 years ago. The inflation-adjusted cost per square foot hasn't changed that much. People just want more and more square footage, but complain when the total price for it is also more.  Boohoo.

 

https://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-the-living-space-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-40-years/

 

 

First off, I'm not talking about 40 years ago which was already well on its way to way we are now, I was talking about 90 years ago before we headed into this downward spiral. 

 

Secondly, you're right, houses are bigger, however you should well know that as houses become smaller (which they were 40, 50, 60, 100 years ago) price per square foot goes up dramatically.

 

Thirdly...wider hallways, bigger stairwells, larger rooms, higher and wider door openings, wider toilet clearances, higher ceilings, egress requirements, clearance from combustibles, the list goes on...are all mandatory square footage increases whether someone wants it or not.  

[Richard_Morrison]

Jay,

 

But the point is that houses don't cost more now than they have historically, even with so-called "over-regulation", that is, even with increased safety and energy efficiency. If you want 4,000 s.f. and can afford it, go for it. Whining about how much more it costs now because of regulation and "safety issues," ignores the basic fact that it doesn't. The ratio of housing cost to income is not much different than it was 30 years before all this regulation. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/us-house-prices  And this is with significantly larger houses. There was a blip in the pre-2008 housing bubble where price to income was crazy, but we all knew that.

 

This argument is like claiming that seat belts, air bags, and energy regulations are responsible for the "high cost" of cars. In fact, car costs have come down historically as a proportion of income, and we are now getting more fuel efficiency and better maintenance for less cost. http://www.freeby50.com/2008/11/history-of-new-car-costs-and-average.html

[Jay_on_Cape]

Richard,

 

  The point of this whole thread is "over regulation" not today's cost versus historical cost.  Drop all of this "over regulation" and what you're saying is the cost would be more affordable than it was 30 years ago. I would hope that this would be the case as we have gotten more efficient at most tasks. So you're saying we should give this all back for the sake of "over regulation"?   Does this mean that every time CA comes out with new tools that make your process quicker and more efficient you give the savings back to your customers?

 

  Forget all the "cost data" or historical numbers and boil it down to this.  In MA in the past 10 years the increased additional code amendments cost amount to a minimum of 6% increase in construction cost before overhead or profit.  What does the customer have to show for this?  Some extra insulation, lowered energy costs?  Will they ever get a return on that investment?  Probably not.

[Richard_Morrison]

Thirdly...wider hallways, bigger stairwells, larger rooms, higher and wider door openings, wider toilet clearances, higher ceilings, egress requirements, clearance from combustibles, the list goes on...are all mandatory square footage increases whether someone wants it or not.  

 

Now you're just getting silly. Point to a current code section that has significantly changed the mandatory square footage or volume. I think the 3' minimum hallway requirement hasn't changed since the code book I was using in the 70's. The latest round of the code reduced the minimum ceiling height in some areas, and egress window sizes. (You can have a ceiling height of 7' throughout. How is this restrictive? Are you designing for poor hobbits? And I'd guess a 7' ceiling costs more than an 8' ceiling due to non-standard materials.) And, in fact, you are now allowed to cheaper materials like wood foundation systems and PEX domestic piping that were not even legal when I started in this business. Story limitations on wood frame construction have been relaxed a bit, etc. 

[Richard_Morrison]

  In MA in the past 10 years the increased additional code amendments cost amount to a minimum of 6% increase in construction cost before overhead or profit.  What does the customer have to show for this? 

 

An increase over WHAT? Not having to comply with these code amendments? You are assuming that this money would be happily credited back to Owners and that the construction cost would be reduced accordingly.  In fact, construction costs pretty much align with sales prices and cost of living which are NOT based on code amendments. In California, construction costs in the Bay Area are often $300/SF or more, compared with less than $200/SF in other parts of the state. Do we have 50% more regulation than 50 miles away? Or 50% higher materials costs? Of course not. The construction price is driven by the comparable sales prices in the area and the higher cost of living here.

[Alaskan_Son]

Now you're just getting silly. Point to a current code section that has significantly changed the mandatory square footage or volume. I think the 3' minimum hallway requirement hasn't changed since the code book I was using in the 70's. The latest round of the code reduced the minimum ceiling height in some areas, and egress window sizes. (You can have a ceiling height of 7' throughout. How is this restrictive? Are you designing for poor hobbits? And I'd guess a 7' ceiling costs more than an 8' ceiling due to non-standard materials.) And, in fact, you are now allowed to cheaper materials like wood foundation systems and PEX domestic piping that were not even legal when I started in this business. Story limitations on wood frame construction have been relaxed a bit, etc. 

 

 

Like I said before, I don't think I can convince you otherwise, I'm only responding for the sake of anyone else who might be reading this who may be influenced. 

 

You've ignored a few of the most basic and most substantial points.  You're referring to the 70's and onward when the problems I'm referring to were already well begun, and you and I both know that building a 600 square foot house can easily cost twice as much per square foot as a 2,400 square foot house of the same basic quality and construction so saying the cost per square foot has stayed around the same is highly deceptive and misleading.

 

And with regard to the mandatory square footage increases I alluded to (and these are just a few off the top of my head most of which I have first hand experience with)...

Toilet clearances:  We've had at least a couple jobs in recent memory where it was impossible to legally put a toilet where it previously was.  The only answer...make the bathroom bigger...increase square footage.

Door openings and hallway clearances:  Increase a hallway width from say 30" to 36"...extra square footage.

Stairwells:  Increase width from 30" to 36"...extra square footage.  Increase tread depth from 8'' to 10"  extra square footage.  Landing requirements...extra square footage.  Headroom requirements (cut out of floor space above)...extra square footage.  Decrease riser height (adds steps)...extra square footage.

Egress requirements:  Harder to quantify, but if you've ever designed a smaller house you have to understand how every little inch can count.  A few inches here or there can require a total layout change (and usually the resulting additional square footage, and the necessity to put every bedroom on an exterior wall and leave room for a door that meets code opening requirements as well as a closet...results in extra square footage.

 

I can't even begin to count how many times I've had to tell a client "We can't put a door there", "That toilet won't fit there", "The shower door would be too small", "We can't make these stairs meet code without a total remodel or adding on to this back wall", "This hallway won't be wide enough", "We can't make a legal set of stairs fit there", "The hearth is required to come out further than that",  "A bedroom can't go there"..."We can't put the furnace there"...The list could go on.  Code has ABSOLUTELY and without question increased the size of homes.  And that's just square footage.

 

 

If you want to talk about prices aside from square footage and code related cost increases...you're right, we do have cheaper materials now.  What do you think that means about the relative square footage prices of yesteryear? 

 

I can't see how you even try to argue most of this...I'd bet you can find a way to twist the cost of the code requirement this thread is all about?  Adding drywall...added cost.  Period. 

 

Bigger houses with cheaper material should cost MUCH less per square foot, but relative price has only increased.  I'd venture to guess a house of the same usable size and quality of your average 1,000 square foot house from the 20's built to today's codes would cost $600 per square foot to build if you had to use their materials.  Conversely, if they had our cheaper materials and retained their lack of code, I'd bet the great depression would have been a moderate depression and people would have had bigger houses to tough it out in. 

[Richard_Morrison]

Okay, Michael. Here is a 1973 Building Code. https://archive.org/details/standardbuilding00unse

 

36" min. hallways. 36" wide stairs min. Treads & risers virtually unchanged from today. Pretty much same live loads. You have a very selective memory. And frankly, if someone is building new, rather than remodeling, they don't have the same argument to make. ("Gosh, I really want 30" hallways in my new 4000 s.f. house. Why is the building department making me build extra square footage?")

 

I also did not say that smaller house construction costs were the same as a larger house. What I said, or at least meant to say, was that the cost per square foot to BUY a median house has not changed appreciatively over the past decades, even after all this "over-regulation," after being adjusted for inflation. You can spend $500K to build a house that will only sell for $250K. I think it's the $250K number that's important, because that's what "poor" families are going to be facing.

 

I would venture to guess that people who complain about the 6% "extra" costs mentioned by Jay will be the first in line at FEMA or their insurance company if their houses fail in a hurricane, flood, or earthquake, and expect the rest of us to foot the bill for their failure to take advantage of improved knowledge of building performance.

[Joe_Carrick]

Don't forget that every time a house is sold, the cost goes up 6% to cover the real estate commissions. 

[Jay_on_Cape]

An increase over WHAT? Not having to comply with these code amendments? You are assuming that this money would be happily credited back to Owners and that the construction cost would be reduced accordingly.  In fact, construction costs pretty much align with sales prices and cost of living which are NOT based on code amendments. In California, construction costs in the Bay Area are often $300/SF or more, compared with less than $200/SF in other parts of the state. Do we have 50% more regulation than 50 miles away? Or 50% higher materials costs? Of course not. The construction price is driven by the comparable sales prices in the area and the higher cost of living here.

The increase is the direct cost of those code amendments.  If we could go back to the codes even 10 years ago (you remember, back when the homes could breathe) we would save approximately 6%.  Yes, assuming the same profit margin is preserved the price reduction would go to the homebuyer.

 

 Yes, I understand construction costs......I built homes on Nantucket where I would actually have to fly all sub-contractors in every day to work on the homes.  Try paying over $90 per round trip per person in airline tickets for every trade required to build a home and you can imagine the costs and the cost of additional code amendments to save us from ourselves.

[DRAWZILLA]

Isn't  that Microsoft's motto also??

[BryceEngstrom]

Anyway, I don't want to get into a big political argument.

 

Don't be ridiculous, of course you do, which is why you feel so compelled to bring up your political stance at every given opportunity.

[BryceEngstrom]

Bryce, shouldn't they go after the causes of the fire first and not this? Using this logic car manufactures should make their cars much safer to protect us from the distracted and drunk drivers? Where do they stop?

 

You're comparing a building material with innate fire resistance and moisture issues compared to solid wood framing to a distracted or drunk driver?  This is what is known as hyperbole.  Fires are accidents that happen even with the best of intentions and reasonable measures ought be taken to at least slow it down so you can get out safely.