November 8, 2000
This is in reference to the inquiry whether the ICBO 180 class will be given on line. I am not sure at this point but that could certainly be a possibility in the future. I think an important resource initially might be the commentary that will be published with the performance code. This along with the review guides being published by SFPE in the future will be helpful. My guess is that you will see more activities related to this topic. I think the NFA(National Fire Academy) is producing a 5 day class that will potentially be given throughout the country in the next year or so.
February 14, 2000
Alternate but equal is always difficult. There are more possibilities than one can imangine. I am not sure what training or guides would help. Time and overall training in the long run is the solution. early in my career I say a codebook as black and white issues rather than the grey tones I see today. It is the overall williness of code officals and plan examiners to view the code as a guideline and not absolutes. As an example the ceiling requires a two hour rating but only one hour is proposed, however, the required suppression system system is only required to be light hazard but they propose to provide twice the flow. Is that equal, some of us would say no, others yes. In the example I felt that this was acceptable, modification was approved and we go on. Each case is different,the codes are a balance scale, take away something on one side then you must get equal in return. Being open to new ideas and exchanging them with each other are one of our best tools. The solutions to most problems is and exchange of ideas and a willness to work together. It not codes against architects or contractors or owners but all of us working together to insure that the final product produces the safest possible construct. None of us can do it alone.
August 27, 2001
The review guide will be helpful... thanks..
Will the 108 course be offered on-line in the future?
November 8, 2000
With regard to training. The ICC has a contract with SFPE to create a review guide for AHJ''s. This will complement their design guide. I think a draft is supposed to be available the fall of 2002.
I agree classes of some sort would be invaluable. We offer one in fire which was originally developed with SFPE (ICBO 180). Seismic design has generally been somewhat performance for sometime so it is (only to a certain degree) taught and used more often. Performance could also be in other subjects such as energy, moisture, plumbing etc.
August 27, 2001
A training road show that could educate AHJ''s, etc.. on guidelines as to what is ''acceptable''; similiar to what the SFPE offers.
November 8, 2000
As staff at ICBO I do not use the section but have talked with many jurisdictions that do. Your issue raises a good point. I think any time something is not in the code the immediate reaction is either "no" or provide justification based on the alternate materials and methods section. The problem being is that we are not always sure what the prescriptive code is trying to achieve in the first place so when you try to demonstrate equivalency we are not sure of the equivelncy to what!? Evaluation reports are a good way that has worked but as more products come out faster than reports are written we end up in this situation.
There are some tools coming down the path which are hoped to provide a least a tool to understand just what we are suppose to show with regard to equivelency. The document is the ICC Performance Code for Buidlings and Facilities. The final draft can be downloaded for free on the ICBO performance code page (http://www.icbo.org/Code_Talk/.....ance_Codes) A first edition is scheduled to be released this December. Both will contain a code and commentary and provide both administrative guidance and more detailed intent statements.
Hope this helps a bit. I think the more discussion on this topic we can get the better prepared we will all be in approaching these issues.
March 7, 2001
How often do you use the alternate materials and methods section and what has the experience been like? As a architect, and not a jurisdiction I have had more and more requests from Building officials to use section 104.2.8 for products that do not have er #''s or not in the code. Like PEX piping, not allowed in California.
[This message has been edited by maniac (edited 09-04-2001).]
Most Recent Topics
- PRONTO online testing experience?
- Shear Walls
- Gas valve clearance from operable windows or doors
- Passed test
- P3 Plumbing Plans Examiners Exam
- Outdoor area occupancy classification
- Restaurant vs Bar Occupant Load Calculation
- elevator access to mezzanine and 2nd floor
- Notching load bearing wood stud wall