1. How many states have adopted the 2003 and 2006 IBC?
"The 2006 IBC has been adopted in 37 states and the 2003 IBC in 9 states which means 46 of 50 states have State code adoption of the new codes which include anchor requirements in the building code. The other four states have some local jurisdictions who have adopted either the 03 or 06 codes so the impact is in all 50 states. Some of the adoptions are state-wide and some are partial.”
2. What does this mean with respect to anchors?
"Basically there have been no changes in the code that affect how post installed anchors are evaluated or the design values assigned to the anchors in the 2006 code, that was done with the 2003 code. The 2006 code continues to reference the adoption of section 104.11 which sets out requirements for alternatives to the building code, for which adhesive anchors can demonstrate equivalence in meeting the building code through AC-308. A current valid ICC-ES report is evidence that a product is code compliant."
3. What does required by code mean…is it the law?
"The building code is normally adopted by the governmental body (state, city or county) so yes there are legal requirements! When adoption takes place at the state level, a timeline is normally set for local jurisdictions to begin implementation and enforcement of the code after it is published."
4. Some of our competitors have said the new code does not apply to adhesive anchors, is this true?
"The 2006 International Building Code adopted provisions for mechanical anchors. Just because adhesive anchors are not specifically addressed in the code, it does not mean that they do not have to comply with the code. Section 104.11 in the IBC is for alternative materials and applies in this case. An alternative material is a product that is not specifically addressed in the code. To meet this requirement, ICC-ES developed acceptance criteria for adhesive anchors for the specific purpose of demonstrating equivalence to the requirements stated in the code for anchorage to concrete. This acceptance criteria as spelled out in AC-308 so in effect if adhesive anchors are to be used and comply with the 2006 building code they must meet AC-308 or prove equivalence and the best way to do that is to reference a valid issued ICC-ES report."
5. Does the building code cover concrete block?
"Yes, the code has prescriptive requirements for concrete masonry units and construction in Chapter 21 of the IBC and Chapter 6 of the IRC. Mechanical Anchors meeting AC-01 or adhesive anchors meeting AC-58 criteria qualify for use in concrete block and presenting a valid ICC-ES issues report demonstrates compliance with this code."
6. What's the difference between having an anchor approved for cracked concrete and one listed for uncracked concrete? Isn't it true that all concrete cracks? Why would I sell anchors approved for uncracked if the same anchor is provided by another supplier approved for cracked concrete?
"It is true that all concrete is subject to cracking during its service life. Within the definition of cracked concrete, it is assumed that anchors qualified for use in cracked concrete, which is defined in the code, will be used in those areas subject to cracking. In addition all anchors approved for cracked concrete are also approved for uncracked concrete. For this reason having an anchor qualified for both conditions is optimal, especially if the cost to the end user is about the same."
7. If a building is designed according to the 2006 IBC but the contractor chooses to use products not listed with ICC-ES (ie: not meeting code), does he have any additional liability? If yes what's the worst that could happen?
"It is up to the party seeking the building permit to demonstrate that the products being used on the project comply with the applicable requirements of the building code. If the building code is either 06 or 03 then code compliant anchors must be used. If the product does not have a current ICC-ES evaluation report, data must be provided to, and reviewed by, the code official. If the product is an alternative to the code, the code official must apply Section 104.11 and decide what requirements are applicable. If an ICC-ES acceptance criteria is available, the code official is free to use that document as a basis for evaluating the product. So the answer to the question is that there are other paths to code compliance than an ICC-ES evaluation reports, however they may involve additional obligations to provide information and justification."
8. As a distributor I hear a lot of noise from the manufacturers about the new codes, should I be converting my customers from traditional anchors to code listed products and what's in it for me?
"Anchors recognized in current ICC-ES evaluation reports have the assurance that the products have been reviewed by an independent, accredited agency compliance with the code, for product quality, and for the design loads that apply to that product."
9. I understand that the IRC and IBC are essentially the same when it comes to anchoring, why is the transportation market on a different planet and why doesn't ICC communicate with them so there is one standard?
"Historically transportation standards have been developed separate from ICC. In fact, from state to state the standards differ depending on the particular states acceptance criteria. ICC is not involved with the transportation code, only the building codes…if we were there might be one standard! The standards used for concrete anchoring for building, incidentally, are very similar to those used in Europe. For Transportation departments it is normally best to check the State's DOT website when looking for anchors that might be approved."
10. Is there one document that states that the local jurisdictions must adhere to the code that the state has adopted?
"Adoption of the code varies from state to state. In California, for instance, the state adopts the model code, amends it as appropriate, and all jurisdictions within the state are required to enforce the minimum requirements of the amended code. In other states, like Texas, individual jurisdictions are free to adopt the code they feel is appropriate for their jurisdiction, so different jurisdictions within the state may adopt different versions of the code."
11. What is the difference between a category 1 and a category 2 listed anchor?
"Category 1 listed anchors are top rated for consistency and reliability. Category 2 anchors have medium reliability and are more sensitive to installation and service conditions than category 1 anchors."
12. What is ICC doing to educate the inspectors and code officials about the requirement for code listed anchors?
"ICC provides training for both building officials and inspectors about enforcement. Uniformity of application is the desired outcome but it always remains the responsibility of the code official to decide what is appropriate for their jurisdiction. ICC-ES has embarked on a program to further educate code officials and designers on the importance as well as the application of Evaluation Reports and Acceptance Criteria. During the last year ICC-ES has begun offering free educational webinars which offer CEU's. To date all six that were offered were sold out. ICC-ES plans to work with manufacturers such as Powers in addition to trade associations and the code enforcement community to better educate our industry on the importance of ESR's in showing proof of code compliance as well as other tangible value it offers in the marketplace."
The statements above should not be construed as an endorsement by ICC or ICC-ES.
|
