Discovery of Undersized Members

[Forensic74]

If a structural element, say a wooden window header, is slightly undersized (say 5% overstress under design load) and nobody catches it; the building is constructed, CO approved; can a building inspector legally come back in (say 10 years later) and require the element to be upgraded? If so, what provisions in the code would allow him to do this?

I ask because I run into situations where a building is damaged and is being repaired under the IEBC building code, and in many situations the IEBC says you can repair it to it's pre-damaged condition unless it's a dangerous condition. Sometimes the repair work exposes non-damaged elements that are slightly undersized. I'm trying to determine if the IEBC or the original design code would apply.

 

[jayrod12]

5% usually just requires a sharpening of your pencil to get it to calc out. so although they may in fact come and tell you to replace it. It's also just as likely you can provide calculations to prove it work as is.

 

[Forensic74]

Yea, I know those situations. Lets instead consider a condition where a plumber improperly blew through a floor joist. Not going to make it work on paper, but not necessarily dangerous per the IEBC.

 

[jayrod12]

I'm in the fix it crowd on those ones. If you can't find a way to make it calc out, then you must fix it. It's fairly black and white in my eyes.

You can however, use any means available to make it calc out. Sometimes the answer comes down to, what's the repair cost worth, versus what's the cost of proving the as-built condition is adequate.

 

[Forensic74]

I can certainly understand that approach, but requiring an owner to upgrade something when they aren't necessarily required to can also get you in trouble.

 

[CBSE]

In my EIT days, if something calc'd out that was 5% or less overstredsed, my boss would say it is within the margin of error. I don't necessarily follow that logic.

If you discover an I-joist that has a hole larger than what is permitted, I would assume you should repair it. That falls in the category of not safe per the manufacturer most likely. If a beam in its current state is 5% or less over stressed, I probably wouldn't lose too much sleep over it as you are repairing to original state.

 

[jayrod12]

If they aren't required to fix/upgrade it then there must be a way of proving that. Otherwise what is the justification for saying it's not required

 

[Forensic74]

The justification for an upgrade not being required is the International Existing Building Code (if adopted by your jurisdiction) that deals with existing structures. IEBC says that you dont need to upgrade it unless considered as dangerous. Blindly applying new construction building code to existing structures is not appropriate.

In fact, some recent versions of the IEBC go as far as defining that overstress up to 133% is not dangerous. Newer versions give the judgement to the engineer.

My question is, would it be legal for the building official come back in way after the CO is given and enforce the original new construction code, since its no longer adopted, i'm not sure how they could, but am curious if anyone else has thought about this.

 

[straub46]

IEBC says that you dont need to upgrade it unless considered as dangerous.

Just to clarify, that is NOT what the IEBC says. The IEBC says if it would comply to the code at the time of design or last alteration/repair/addition, then it doesn't need to be upgraded (with exceptions). Are you working on an alteration, addition, or repair? That also determines what needs to be done.

If the floor joist were damaged during installation and wouldn't calc out at the time of design, it should be repaired.

Go Bucks!

 

[Once20036]

I think this is one of those questions that is difficult to answer without specifics of your situation.
What's the whole story here?
Are we talking about strengthening something or repairing something?
Are we talking about a building that has been damaged? Or an inspector with an axe to grind?

If you're talking about repairing an existing building that has been damaged, IEBC `15 602.1 states, "Materials already in use in a building in compliance with requirements or approvals in effect at the time of their erection or installation shall be permitted to remain in use unless determined by the code official to render the building or structure unsafe or dangerous..."
and dangerous is defined, in part, as, "there exists a significant risk of collapse, detachment, or dislodgement of any portion, member, (etc)... under service loads".
It sounds to me like the inspector is well within his rights to require repairs not related to the original damage. Your argument would lie in whether or not a condition is dangerous.
IE, a window header 5% overstressed is not dangerous. One joist that was drilled out 15 years ago probably isn't dangerous.

If you're talking about something aside from a repair to an existing building, hopefully you can clarify your circumstances.

 

[nutte]

Your original question is, if there is a construction defect, and nobody catches it, can the building official come along years later and insist it be "upgraded," and if so, under what authority?

I would say yes, if there is a defect, and it is discovered, of course the building official can insist it be corrected. Under what authority? The ordinances passed by the municipality making him the building official.

Isn't that the building official's job in the first place, to ensure the users of that building are not put in harm's way?

Maybe your question is really "do I have to say anything if I discover this old construction defect." That's a different question entirely.

 

[bowlingdanish]

In my opinion, there's a big difference between an undersized member, and a member that is insufficient for its purpose. Generally the latter will be flagged by building officials or occupants due to defects in their serviceability limit states - in that case absolutely they must be fixed. If it's the former, then I really don't understand the question. How can a building inspector waltz in, determine all the dead, superdead, imposed and other loads, run then the loads down the building to the specific element in question and make a calculation on their capacity and call it 5% under? Sounds absolutely silly.

 

[racookpe1978]

The other way is "change" the assumptions made to calculate that 5% overstress situation.
If a floor joist (beam) is drilled through, then you go to the floor above and post a sign saying "Floor loads limited to 10 tons per square yard." The "understrength" joist is now fully capable of holding the "reduced load" on the floor AS ACTUALLY IN PLACE.

A "live load" extrapolation from "assumed" live loads and "assumed" operating conditions can be eliminated by eliminating the condition that creates the overload. Even if "no load" can be put on that floor over that joist? Then paint the floor yellow and barricade it off.