Gypsum Association proprietary systems

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1356 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 04:01 pm:    Architects typically indicate the Gypsum Association assembly designations on the wall / floor systems in the Drawings. The problem is many of these GA assemblies are proprietary and only allow a single manufacturer/product. My specification typically allows for 3 or 4 gypsum manufacturers. What happens when the proprietary systems indicated have different manufacturers? Certainly a contractor is going to buy his material from one source and he certainly is not going to monitor different products being installed in different locations for different assemblies. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant/Web Publisher www.localproductreps.com Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 188 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 04:49 pm:    David, I always inform the project team that the GA manual is an industry association handbook and not a test number. I have found that there are AHJs will not allow that as a substitution for true test numbers. The GA handbook does have generic assemblies, too. They need to select from them first. I am sure that they have the same assembly needed there. Why everyone goes to the GA handbook is that it is a lot easier to find things than looking at a UL book. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1220 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 06:48 pm:    The IBC allows the use of GA-600 assemblies, but only the generic ones. If a proprietary system is used, I suggest they look for an equivalent UL assembly, which is generally accepted by AHJs. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 189 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 06:55 pm:    Ron, I have had AHJs here in California reject the GA-600. They wanted an actual test number from a testing lab. UL, WHI, etc. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1221 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 07:14 pm:    Unless they have amended the IBC, they cannot reject it because it is specifically in the code. See Footnote "m" in Table 721.1(1), Footnote "o" in Table 721.1(2), and Footnote "q" in Table 721.1(3). If the provision is in the code, and you comply with that provision, then they legally cannot reject it. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 64 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 07:21 pm:    You beat me to it, Ron. But the same is true in California. That is footnote m of CBC table 721.1(1)where generic systems from GA-600 are specifically allowed. Similar footnotes are also for 721.1(2 and 3). Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 190 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 07:34 pm:    Ron, yes, I agree that by the letter of the law they cannot deny you the building permit, but they do all the time. I know of an architect that it took a year to get the permit because they did not like the structural system proposed. It met code. We have had inspectors red tagging projects without providing what section of the code applies. Same with the building permit comments. Just anger an AHJ and see what happens in the field. Same with fire officials. The bottom line is that it is easier to change the GA labels to a testing agency than it is to get into a pissing match with an AHJ. Just tell your client that he has to go fight city hall with a lengthy battle and see what he says to you to do. Been there, done that. They want their permit and you just go change it. That hasn't changed for years. I actually remember doing the same thing in Texas in 1983. AHJ had his interpretation and we even called the UBC and they agreed with the architect. The AHJ still said he wanted it his way. We changed it since it wasn't a big deal breaker. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1222 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 07:59 pm:    I know you're not me, but, in the interest of time, I would probably comply with the request if directed by my client; then I would file a complaint with the city attorney or manager informing them that their officials are abusing their authority. I can't sue, since I'm not the injured party, but having the city know that they have a potential liability risk may cause the them to rein in their building and fire officials. As a consultant, I don't mind burning some bridges with the local authorities, because my name or company is typically not attached to any particular set of documents, so they wouldn't know if I was a consultant on a project or not when a set of documents are submitted for plan review. If they don't like something in the code, it is very easy for them to amend it. To me, it defies logic why building/fire officials would want to have these arguments every time the situation arises. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1357 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 08:25 pm:    I have worked on many projects over the years that had proprietary GA numbers. Luckily it has never been an issue with the code officials. However, I do expect luck to run out one of these days. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant/Web Publisher www.localproductreps.com Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 767 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 09:25 pm:    "Just anger an AHJ and see what happens in the field." Words of wisdom, Alan. Even as a young buck I was smart enough to understand that. In my first job after graduating I encountered a building official who insisted we use bridging between joists that clearly did not require it. I could have gone over his head and appealed to the state, but I knew the result would be continual nit-picking for the remainder of the project. At the time I thought I would wait until the project was done, then tell him what an idiot he was. By the time we finished, I realized I would probably have to deal with him again. Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 65 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 10:17 pm:    That is the problem with bullies. And people wonder why I've become anti-regulation...along with anti-big government. Does the NSA monitor this website...? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 664 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, May 23, 2014 - 03:45 am:    The problem is that if nobody pushes back it just encourages these abuses of power. It has gotten so bad that many engineers assume that plan checkers and inspectors can legally require what ever they want. Suggest that in these situations you let the Owner know that the city is arbitrarily imposing additional requirements not in the codes. Let the Owner know it will cost extra and that you need to be paid for the time it will take to make the additional changes. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1816 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, May 23, 2014 - 10:21 am:    It was a small issue in the very beginning of my career. I was just out of school and working on an addition to a factory that would house the heating system. It was concrete block and designed to code. The local building inspector met me at the site and stated he would not approve the design, but then implied that if we used his brother-in-law's company as sole source for the block, he would approve it. I was idealistic - and appalled. I went back to the office and my boss and I contacted the local governing body and told them what had happened. The inspector was fired. The design was approved. Sometimes the white hats win. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 192 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, May 23, 2014 - 01:07 pm:    Ron, as an architect, I want a consultant that works with the city versus burning bridges. There are many times that an architect hires his code consultant due to his ability of working with the city versus "burning the bridge". An example is that a horizontal exit is accepted by the code and is used many times as a means to renovate a building when the existing stairs cannot handle a new assembly occupant load. I personally have run into fire officials that while the code says that it is accepted, they will not approve it. We hire that code consultant on his ability to negotiate the acceptance of what they will not allow. FYI, it always means we have to go above what the code actually requires, but working with the AHJ and the consultant made the acceptance much easier and acceptable to all. Mark, in my experiences when this happened we notified the client and they said do what the city asks, just get me my building permit. It was the client that chose to move forward even though they had the right to press the city on it. Lynn, that definitely would have to be reported. What the inspector was asking for was a bribe. That is a criminal law and a city official caught taking a bribe. Of course he would be fired. It is very different than an AHJ interpreting the code. Sheldon, I was a young buck myself when I learned that. You are right, I have to work with these officials in the future and they remember things from the past. Actually it goes even further than that. You can have a sub contractor that bid on the job and lost come into play. On a recent project, the city refused to give a CO on a building because a sub first went to an inspector and told him that the product installed did not meet code. The inspector actually had this sub do this before and was going to ignore him. The sub then went to the city. After 3 months of daily investigation and meeting with AHJ (actually having him say that we knew more about the code than he did), his bosses and through them, the city attorneys, we finally got CO. It took many tests and then back tracking that the testing agency was an approved state testing agency. All of this was because the sub (by their web site seemed to be operating out of his truck) did not get the job. Where was the code found? In the state energy code where if you really looked into it the individual products of each company has to be listed to meet that code. The building department typically did not review that code. This is actually the shortened version of the story. I am leaving out a ton of detail since this was so complicated. The lesson learned is that it better at times to let the AHJ have their way with things even though it doesn't meet some part of an obscure passage of the code. The city worked with us the whole time. If was had not worked with them and said that we did meet code (which we did, but the city attorney was very cautious due to this sub threatening to sue the city) we would have to possibly rip out what was installed and replace them with the subcontractor's product which would have cost about 3 times as much than what he originally bid, without the demolition costs (He had done this before with a different contractor and they did that). Lets just say that the owner was not pleased with that possible solution and was happy that we worked with the city to get it done. If we had argued the point, we would have made enemies with the AHJ, the client and the contractor. David, do not think that the architect is out of the woods, yet. IF something goes wrong and the lawyers go through the code, the city holds no responsibility and they will point out that it does not meet code even though you got a building permit and a CO. Again, that is why I prefer to use the actual tested assembly numbers over the GA numbers. Most city officials know UL, WHI or even ICC evaluations. They may not know the GA assemblies. My father once taught me a very good lesson in life when I was a young boy. I watched him accept a cup of coffee from a gentlemen when I knew he hated coffee. I later asked him why he did that and he said, "sometimes it is better to accept something you do not like than it is to refuse to accept his offer." Today, I realize my father was a very wise man...