Masonry cavity drainage mat

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Product Discussions #4
21

I will accept that the applicability of ACI 530.1 is defined by how it is referenced. Thus the problem is not necessarily how it is directly referenced from the IBC but rather from ACI 530.

Follow the path listed below. This is a classic example of the MOP warning about understanding the contents of the standards you referenced.

IBC 2101.2.4:- Empirical design invokes chapter 5 of ACI 530 which in turn invokes Chapter 1 of ACI 530 from ACI 530 Section 5.1.1.1.

IBC 2101.2.5:- Glass unit masonry invokes chapter 7 of ACI 530 which in turn invokes Chapter 1 of ACI 530 from ACI 530 Section 7.1.1.1.

IBC 2101.2.6:- Masonry veneer invokes chapter 6 of ACI 530 which in turn invokes Chapter 1 of ACI 530 from ACI 530 Section 6.1.1.1.

Section 1.4 of ACI 530 invokes ACI 530.1. Note that they diverge from good specification writing practices by invoking all of the reference standards from the list of references.

In each of these sections (5.1.1.2, 7.1.1.2, and 6.1.1.2) ACI 530 indicates that a portion of ACI 530.1 is not applicable which would not be necessary if ACI 530.1 did not apply.

The complete content of ACI 530 is part of the building code and is only superseded by the specific provisions in the body of the IBC. While each reference only indicates a specific part of ACI 530 when taken together the whole document is applicable.

Where a provision in the IBC differed from ACI 530 or 530.1 the IBC provision would govern. The problem is that slight difference in wording may make it difficult to resolve the differences. This is the result of poor code drafting practices.

What I would like to see is a sample project specification from the committee that developed ACI 530 or from the industry that is fully compatible with ACI 530.1. This sample project specification could then be reviewed by members of this forum to determine whether it is consistent with good specification writing practices. Ultimately this sample project specification could be used to guide development of project specifications.

22

Quote - “The complete content of ACI 530 is part of the building code and is only superseded by the specific provisions in the body of the IBC.”

While I disagree with the above, I do agree that poor code drafting leads to issues such as this. I don’t believe the intent of ICC was to incorporate the entire content of the MSJC into the IBC. Many times references within references within references are not tracked through to termination to find out the full extent or implications when the code references a specific portion of a standard.

23

Poor Code Drafting:

Plan check last month for a hospital in California included a comment to “conform to CBC Standard 1507.11.2”.

The entire text of 1507.11.2 is as follows:
1507.11.2 Material standards.
Modified bitumen roof coverings shall comply with CGSB 37-GP-56M, ASTM D 6162, ASTM D 6163, ASTM D 6164, ASTM D 6222, ASTM D 6223 or ASTM D 6298.

After some back and forth, California OSHPD graciously agreed that we did not need to conform to CGSB 37-GP-56M, as in “Canadian General Standards Board”.

24

I had similar discussions with the chairman of the ACI 530 committee and it is my understanding that it was their intent that ACI 530 and ACI 530.1 are a part of the code. Determining the intent of ICC is more difficult to devine since the code changes are authored by the proponents and ICC does not typically make any statements regarding intent.

Maybe Brian Trimble, who commented above, can help us to understand what formal positions ACI 530 has expressed on this matter. Mr. Trimble works for the brick industry and is apparently active in standards dealing with grout and mortar.