anchor
Can you guess the most common building code violations?
A new report from the International Code Council ranks the top commercial building code violations in a variety of construction trades. The 2019 Common Code Noncompliance Survey Report also details the reasons behind the violations.
— Construction Dive
Construction Dive lists the top five causes for issues, according to inspectors as:
- Workers that don't follow the manufacturer’s instructions.
- A contractor’s lack of code knowledge.
- Cost-cutting, such as using substandard building materials that don’t meet local requirements.
- A lack of coordination between trades resulting in one trade covering up another’s work or not providing enough access for a subcontractor to perform critical work.
- Damage to a trade’s work. This could occur, for example, if another trade penetrated existing firestopping while installing telephone or cable television wiring, reports Construction Dive.
Check out the Construction Dive article for an interactive guide of the specific violations covered in the full report. The subcategories covered look at plans, sitework/foundation, framing, building envelope, MEP, stairs/railing, and safety.
Similar articles on Archinect that may interest you...
5 Comments
Seems like the Architect doesn't crack the top 5, assuming #3 isn't caused by bad specs.
SneakyPete, the top do seem mostly to be a means and methods issue. In the linked article, the "Plans" section addresses the primary issues related to documentation, which is more our domain. Perhaps, I can add it to the article or just leave it here in the comments:
Thanks, Sean. I wasn't trying to criticize your writing, and I will admit I did not click through. I appreciate you posting that here.
That list is a complete non-surprise to me. Many of my colleagues over the years, whether through willful ignorance, misunderstanding of the code, or other reasons, have a poor understanding of code issues. It's disheartening.
That being said, the ICC needs to look in a mirror as well. When they use language that is inconsistent or not well defined (sometimes using words that have no definition and are open to interpretation) and only explain the intent of code passages in the commentary (AVAILABLE NOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL FEE!) it provides a massive blind spot for designers. Instead of looking at the industry as a cash cow, they should be a partnership. The privatization of building safety is grotesque, and this sort of publication, while illuminating, seems to me to be a kind of "Nice building safety you got there, pity if anything happened to it."
Oh no worries at all! I didn't take it as a criticism. I think your comment calls out an important point. Actually, I had also wondered how some of these points might influence how an architect would respond to RFIs. Numbers 1, 2, & 3 particularly jumped out to me in that regard. At least in my experience, the contractor can sometimes try and "pin" stuff on the architect through RFI's and/or Submittals . ("well this was 'approved' by the architect").
Happens ALL of the time. The front end of the spec spells out what the Architect is responsible for confirming / approving in the submittals process and I have used that frequently to fend off contractors who don't check dimensions on shops and then try and foist the blame upon us. I would imagine RFIs are trickier, and we need to keep our guard up.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.