Disappointed in the 2006 IRC.
Last Post 13 Dec 2008 08:55 AM by ICFconstruction. 6 Replies.
Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
ICFconstructionUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1324
Avatar

--
08 Dec 2008 04:05 PM

It was good for the ICF industry that ICF engineering is included in the 2006 IRC. But I am disappointed in the complexity and the lack of scope. And that goes for the PCA prescriptive method too. The IRC and Prescriptive Method uses odd sizes, 3.5", 5.5" and 7.5", instead of the 4,6,8". They use weak 2500psi concrete, who uses 2500psi concrete it doesn't pump well. It mainly uses grade 40 rebar when grade 60 is the normal, because it is the same price, at least here.

I am bidding on a 2 story ICF home and the IRC does not cover the 16' overhead door lintel or two 10' window lintels, in a 6" ICF.

The industry needs a good comprehensive "generic" engineering like Nurture's or Logix's.

Brad Kvanbek - ICFconstruction.net
ContractorPeteUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:115

--
11 Dec 2008 04:38 PM
Ya I totally agree. I sometimes think that the specs in the IRC and prescriptive methods were written that way to keep residential structural engineers in business.
[email protected]<br>
wesUser is Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Send Private Message
Posts:810

--
12 Dec 2008 07:21 AM
I have to agree with pcoughlin. Why can't the code people write in simple everyday English. And let each paragraph speak clearly to its point and stand alone. The constant referencing back and forth is totally unnecessary. Most of the time when I have a question, I have to read three or four pages of crap to get to the final answer, which ususally could be expressed in two or three sentences. If the codes were written by English teachers instead of engineers, it could be half its length and so simple, we would not need the engineers.
Wes Shelby<br>Design Systems Group<br>Murray KY<br>[email protected]
ICFconstructionUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1324
Avatar

--
12 Dec 2008 08:56 AM
Good it is not just me.
Brad Kvanbek - ICFconstruction.net
ContractorPeteUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:115

--
12 Dec 2008 06:28 PM
".....If the codes were written by English teachers instead of engineers, it could be half its length and so simple, we would not need the engineers."

Which is exactly why it is the way it is....job security. Heh...
[email protected]<br>
walltechUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:390

--
13 Dec 2008 08:12 AM
I have not bothered to buy the IRC since we have our local code book and PM 2. Michigan residential is taken from the IRC and both of these address the 16' overhead door (non load bearing) and also 10' windows. A double window is not relevant here in non seismic.

Dave
ICFconstructionUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1324
Avatar

--
13 Dec 2008 08:55 AM
If the Prescriptive method had been done like NUDURA's or LOGIX's it would cover a lot more and all we would have to do is figure live and dead loads, which is not hard.
Brad Kvanbek - ICFconstruction.net
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Active Forums 4.1
Membership Membership: Latest New User Latest: croccohvacusa New Today New Today: 0 New Yesterday New Yesterday: 0 User Count Overall: 35027
People Online People Online: Visitors Visitors: 299 Members Members: 0 Total Total: 299
Copyright 2011 by BuildCentral, Inc.   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement