![]() Water collected at the roof and discharged to the ground surface is required to be discharged at least 5 ft fromįoundation walls only, this provision does not apply to slab-on-grade foundations. Q: When a building utilizing a slab-on-grade, post-tensioned foundation, is constructed on expansive soils, is waterĬollected at the roof and discharged to the ground surface required to be discharged no closer than 5-feet from the edgeĪ: No. Of water disposal from roofs that will collect and discharge all roof drainage to the ground surface at least 5 feet (1524 mm) fromįoundation walls or to an approved drainage system. In areas where expansive or collapsible soils are known to exist, all dwellings shall have a controlled method Here it is, unadulterated, in its entirety: I was able to track down an ICC interpretation of that specific code section, IRC Interpretation 14-3, which addresses this exact question. Undeterred and believing all they needed was the proper documentation to hang their hat on, I pressed on. The CBO and PE replied, "Well that's not how we interpret it." I fail to see what is up for interpretation, as their interpretation would require them to fully omit a critical word in that code section. ![]() In my opinion, this code section is clearly talking about a condition where the foundation is composed of a stem wall that supports the structure above, and separates soil on one side from habitable (or non-habitable) space on the other side. I first pointed out to the Building Official and the third-party plans examiner (PE) that all three previous phases were approved with downspouts discharging to splash blocks, and that R801.3 clearly says "not less than 5ft from foundation walls." Emphasis mine. In areas where expansive soils or collapsible soils are known to exist, all dwellings shall have a controlled method of water disposal from roofs that will collect and discharge roof drainage to the ground surface not less than 5 feet (1524 mm) from foundation walls or to an approved drainage system.Īs an architect who works almost exclusively in an area of California with highly expansive soils with astute and knowledgeable plans examiners, my first thought was, "Why have I never been called on this?" ![]() Upon submittal, the third-party plans examiner commented that our drainage does not comply with CBC R801.3, which for the uninitiated states the following: Also important to mention that the site was designed with rolled curbs, and all the site improvements for all phases (gutter, sidewalk and most of the streets) were completed together during the earlier phases, and are an existing condition on site.The roof drainage system, as originally designed, consisted of standard downspouts terminating at concrete splash blocks, consistent with the previous three phases approved by the University, and again designed by a licensed and experienced civil engineer.The foundation system is a mat/raft slab on grade, post-tensioned, and again designed by a licensed and experienced structural engineer.The land in question had a geotechnical investigation performed by an licensed and experienced geotechnical engineer the report indicated the presence of expansive soils, consistent with the adjacent three phases.The University is using a third-party code consultant to review plans and recommend approval. ![]() Three phases of this development have been completed over the last decade or so we are submitting for the final phase.We (architect and consultant team) are submitting permit/construction drawings to a University for a faculty housing development, in California.I apologize in advance for a rather lengthy post, some of which is presented in a bit of a narrative fashion, but I would love some other opinions on this issue I'm currently dealing with that's causing a lot of heartburn.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |