"Structural damage" - "[ANSI] building standards for residential construction"?

[jeffandmike]

Everyone,

I am attempting to work my way through some relatively recent changes to the State of Tennessee statutes regarding the definition of "structural damage" (see page 2 of the attached document) for sinkhole investigations. As part of the definition, it refers the reader to "building standards for residential construction approved by ANSI" that would cover 1) "variances acceptable" for floor flatness/levelness/deflection/displacement, and 2) "strength and performance requirements... [for] primary structural members and primary structural systems".

W/r/t item #1, I believe some documents which could/would meet this criteria include ANSI A108 American National Standard for Installation of Ceramic Tile and ANSI A117.1 Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. My question is, w/r/t #1, are there others I am missing?

Same thing for item #2... which documents/standards specifically are being referred to?

Btw... it's entirely possible this is a trick question and that no more than what I've listed actually exist. I've observed similar legislation in the state of Florida (

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...te&URL=0600-0699/0627/Sections/0627.706.html)

which points to items that either don't exist, or aren't relevant/applicable.

Thanks for your help. It is appreciated.

 

[DBronson]

J & M:

If I'm reading the attachment correctly the statute applies only to residential buildings. If that's true, A117 doesn't apply - generally, it only applies to commercial buildings. The basic building code documents for residential construction is the IRC (one & two family) and the IBC (multi-family). These are codes that are developed by the ICC which is an ANSI accredited standards developer, but,I don't believe they are "approved" by ANSI. In any case, there is no code language in either of those documents concerning floor flatness or the plumbness of walls. However, the International codes do reference other codes that are ANSI listed codes and that have "performance standards". See the NDS(ANSI/AWC)for wood, ANSI/AISC Code (steel) and, I think, ACI 318 for concrete. I don't think A108 is applicable to this situation.

Regards,

DB

 

[jeffandmike]

DBronson,

Thanks for your response.

You're correct that it is only for residential buildings.

Re: A117... agreed, except that it reports "Section 1005 of this standard provides criteria for minimal accessibility features for one and two family dwelling units and townhouses which are not covered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair Accessibility Guidelines." (the 2009 version, in this instance)

Re: the IBC and IRC not being applicable... agreed. FWIW, I spoke w/ a gentlemen from ICC yesterday who reported their codes "aren't approved by ANSI".

Re: using those codes to find ANSI references, I've checked and am not finding anything that appears to be applicable, other than what I've already mentioned. For example, Chapter 35 Referenced Standards of the 2009 IBC (

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2009/),

under "ANSI", has the A108 document and I am guessing the rest either don't apply or are already covered by A108. Chapter 44 Referenced Standards of the 2009 IRC (

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/2009/)

is largely the same story as the IBC. Also, a better place to search for ANSI code numbers/names is their Standards Store (

http://webstore.ansi.org/).

You are correct on the NDS (it says so right on the cover:

http://www.awc.org/pdf/AWC_NDS-2015_web-viewonly_1411.pdf)

and the AISC documents (like this one, for example:

https://www.aisc.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=39246).

I guess I wasn't aware that ACI 318 was actually "approved by ANSI" (who knows exactly what "approved by ANSI" means anyway)? For example, I am looking at 1995 version (the only one I had immediately available while typing this), and nowhere in the intro or the start of the document do I even see "ANSI" mentioned. I would have thought if ANSI was that instrumental in its development (and actually "approved" the document), their name would have been mentioned.

Re: the applicability of A108... at least for floors that have/will have tile installed, I believe it is. For example, language such as “Floor areas over which tile is directly bonded to subfloor shall not have a deflection greater than 1/360 of the span…” and “Maximum permissible variation in the plane or slope 1/4-inch in 10 feet from the required plane [when measured with a straight edge]" are in the document.

 

[Ron]

J&M....yes, this is a problem in your state and in Florida. I've read reports that seem to put together a variety of voodoo to claim structural damage and in some cases to refute obvious structural damage.

Structural damage should be ( I know I'm dreaming here), based on the opinion of a qualified, licensed engineer who can observe site specific conditions and apply engineering judgment to the issue. It should not be a prescriptive criterion or criteria that are so non-specific and general in nature so as to apply to everything and nothing at once.

 

[jeffandmike]

Ron,

You are absolutely correct. Not to derail my own post, but have you seen statements such as the following?:

"The fact that a crack is only hairline in width is no reason to deem it as minor or negligible... A cracked wall is a fractured wall... when an exterior wall suffers horizontal or stair step cracks [of any width], it has experienced structural failure." Because force cannot transfer across cracks... right?

I am always amused when I read something like this as I wonder how it is possible that gears work (there is a crack between them) or how do cars possibly move down the road (where is the positive connection to the road surface)?

Re: your statement "Structural damage should be... based on the opinion of a qualified, licensed engineer who can observe site specific conditions and apply engineering judgment to the issue"... I generally agree; however, in Tennessee and Florida there is no separate licensing for "structural" engineers... just "professional" engineers. So that leaves the door open for geotechnical engineers, civil engineers, etc. to comment on whether or not there is "structural damage" to a building. Believe it or not, the legislation is actually so murky that you even have geologists making the call!

Anyway, attorneys and judges usually get involved in interpreting the statutes (whether it's Tennessee or Florida), and I am trying to ensure I've covered my bases w/r/t "standards approved by ANSI" in this Tennessee "structural damage" definition, as discussed in the original post.

 

[jeffandmike]

FWIW... I spoke w/ an engineer at ACI a couple of days ago and they reported that potentially obvious choices for this legislation such as ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary and ACI 117 Specification for Tolerances for Concrete Construction and Materials and Commentary are not "approved by ANSI".

Same thing with ASCE... just received an email from them yesterday. They reported that neither ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures nor ASCE 11 Guideline for Structural Condition Assessment of Existing Buildings, for example, "currently carry the [ANSI] designation".

 

[dcarr82775]

You should contract the State Board. Presumably they would know. If somewhat recent legislation enacted this requirement, you could find the sponsoring legislators. Obviously they are well educated in the topic and know the ANSI documents they are referring to. Sarcasm of course, but could be worth a shot.

 

[jeffandmike]

dcarr82775,

I wasn't real optimistic about your suggestion of calling the state board, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway. No dice. They didn't have a clue what I was talking about. They reported that they are literally just a handful of administrative staff members. Still looking into your "sponsoring legislators" suggestion...

 

[a2mfk]

I have been waist deep in insurance legislation in regards to sinkhole activity for going on 6 years in Florida, and it is a very complicated issue with a long back story. I used italics because in this business that term is the threshold used by geologists, which itself is incredibly subjective and ambiguous. We are not talking about open holes in the ground that swallow up Corvettes or people, those are very rare and always make the national news. We are talking about subtle ground movements that in many instances have not even occurred or caused any visible distress to the structure. It is based on geological data, ER, GPR and ultimately SPTs. That is a story for another day.

In 2011, Florida passed new Statutes (Senate Bill 408) that have five horribly written definitions for "structural damage". A quick google search will get you all of this info. Even with standard definitions, it still comes down to engineering judgment, as Ron indicated. There are good and bad engineer players in this game, so you can imagine how this all shakes down. Commercial insurance carriers have begun to incorporate this verbiage into their policies also. The Statutes have done as intended, which is make it more difficult to get coverage for sinkhole activity. Under the law, now, even if you have confirmed sinkhole activity, you have to have structural damage first to have any coverage.

I just realized none of this helps the original post, since I am completely unfamiliar with the new Tennessee laws. But I have written more than one peer review report where I argued that a hairline crack in stucco (maybe or maybe not even in the CMU wall), is not evidence of a STRUCTURAL FAILURE.

Jeffandmike: "The fact that a crack is only hairline in width is no reason to deem it as minor or negligible... A cracked wall is a fractured wall... when an exterior wall suffers horizontal or stair step cracks [of any width], it has experienced structural failure."

I am pretty sure I know exactly where you got this from! A certain forensic engineer out of Florida? Does he have a one page paper on structural failures that he includes in the appendix of his reports? I would love to call him out by name but I guess that wouldn't be right and could be defamation or some BS. There are so many factual errors in this one page that I was going to send it to the board. Then, a few months later, while perusing the FL Board website, I see he was disciplined on a separate design issue. I did not know whether to pile on or hope he had learned his lesson. Lucky for him my Achilles heel is procrastination.

 

[jeffandmike]

a2mfk,

Thanks for your post. Not helpful to my original question, but interesting nonetheless. Re: the current definition(s) of "structural damage" in Florida... they are garbage.

Re: "sinkhole activity" being subjective... you bet it is. I had a conversation with a highly respected geologist who has been practicing a long time and they reported that they like to know "... whether or not there is structural damage on the building, as it helps [them] to determine whether or not there is sinkhole activity below the building". ?!?!?!?

Re: my post on 05/13/15... I heard back from the bill's sponsors. They reported "... we are looking into this for clarification with legal and will advise". So far that's better than I thought I would get. I wasn't expecting any response at all.