When is Code Compliance required?

[cslater]

I ran across some interesting news this morning regarding some old residential structures at UC Davis. A set of 15 geodesic domes were built there by students in the 70's and have been home to students ever since.

They are fiberglass shells with foam coating. The foam is degrading, and as they've looked to repair them, the University is saying that they have to bring them up to full code compliance.

The article is here:

http://d.pr/9bSd

There's more details here:

http://d.pr/1mgd

My understanding of Code would say that these repairs do not trigger the requirement to bring the structures up to current Code standards. I am curious though - what do others think?

 

[MiketheEngineer]

Depends on the local codes - some cities are very strict in this area. Anytime a major repair is done - it may trigger a code compliance review. What is major??

That said - if I was the EoR - I would at least make a few simple checks to see if the strcuture is even close to compliance and advise the owneer of my findings..

 

[Ron]

Sometimes it just depends on what you call the repair or renovation. For instance, the only trigger to this remediation was deterioration of the foam, which I presume is serving as the weatherproofing for the domes. If so, then the remediation is maintenance and only the part being replaced has to comply with current code requirements, if there are any specific to that product. It's like if you replace your roof membrane, you don't have to upgrade the structure...just the roof membrane.

 

[dhengr]

Except that in Calif. they have become maniacal about bldg. codes and compliance to them, and maybe not without some good reason. Besides that, it makes work for a lucky few. At the moment we think Haiti and Christchurch, NZ are disasters, wait until we have the big one in Calif., all of our homeowner’s insur. rates will go up $5000/yr. to pay for that one. On some accounts they may be going a bit overboard though, I hear tell that more than three people leaving a bldg. at any one time might constitute ‘a new use’ and code reevaluation. Actually, light, low structures like these might fair pretty well in an EQ, with some attention to reinf’g. openings, etc.

I agree with Ron, this might be a re-roofing job, or insulation improvement, but having been built 40 years ago, by students, and maintained by them over that time period, if the Uni. wants to get rid of these units for new high rise bldgs., I suspect the students have an uphill battle on their hands. There will be code issues, once the door is opened.

 

[BAretired]

The University is properly concerned about its liability in the event of possible injury or death resulting from unsafe conditions. Some have been identified already and they are taking the conservative step of insisting that the domes be brought into compliance with current code requirements.

In the Province of Alberta, Canada where I live, the code is not retroactive but the authority having jurisdiction can require code compliance if a structure is deemed to be unsafe.

In this case, the University at Davis has an obligation to guarantee the safety of the occupants of the domes. That is what they are doing.

BA

 

[paddingtongreen]

BA beat me to it, just to add that their liability insurer may require it.

Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

 

[cslater]

Great feedback. Thanks everyone - appreciate your insights.