The Wisconsin Commercial Building Code

After 3 days of building code seminars in Madison at the Alliant Energy Expo Center, I am gradually starting to recover. The educational sessions were great, actually: very informative, professionally done with a wide variety of participants and presenters in attendance.

A couple highlights of possible interest to others relating to the State of Wisconsin Commercial Building Code:

Item #1

Adoption of the 2009 version of the I-Codes (IBC, IECC, IEBC, etc.) is hoped to occur by July 1st. This seems to be a "hope" and not an "expectation" for a few reasons:

1. The Safety & Buildings Division will be moving from the Department of Commerce ot the Department of Regulation & Licensing with an expected effective date of July 1st.
2. The proposed changes to the building code need to receive the blessing of the Secretaries of the appropriate department head (now, is that the Commerce Secretary, or the Regs & Licensing Secretary, or more probably both of them?) before becoming finalized.
3. The proposed changes also need to go through the legislative bodies of the State Government before becoming adopted. Anyone heard what they're up to lately? I think they have some higher priorities than a new building code right now, and rightly so.

Item #2

Three Plan Reviewers allegedly retired just last week from the Green Bay plan review office at Safety & Buildings, presumably because of the same reasons for uncertainty outlined above. This leaves the Green Bay office with no plan reviewers left and the State-wide review system which until 18 months ago had 6 offices is now down to just 3: Madison, La Crosse (Holmen), and Waukesha. 18 months ago the single Hayward plan reviewer was laid off, more recently the Shawano office consolidated with Green Bay, and now the "effective" closing of the Green Bay office as all Plan Reviewers there have retired.

Expect plan review to take longer, especially if the spring construction season gets into full swing! Call early for engineering and state plan review so that your summer work doesn't have to become your fall work. Also, remember that for some extra money and with the Owner's signature we can get Permission to Start footings before review is done, but that's as far as you can go without plan review completed by the State.

Any questions, please call me.

Thanks!
Aaron Halberg, P.E.

The Witch of November

"With a load of iron ore - 26,000 tons more
Than the Edmund Fitzgerald weighed empty
That good ship and true was a bone to be chewed
When the gales of November came early."
from "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", by Gordon Lightfoot

The short term weather forecast and additional warnings and discussions from the Weather Channel and others, indicate a high probability of damaging winds on October 26th and 27th in the Midwest. The storm pattern and intensity is being compared to the infamous 1975 storm that took down the finest inland ship of the day, the Edmund Fitzgerald, and the lives of the 29 crew members on board.

Although being on a boat or ship during such a wind storm would be scarier to me than the best Haunted House you can imagine, these wind storms are nothing to be taken lightly when you're on land either. Problems with strong winds range from trees falling on transmission lines (power outages) to blocked roads limiting access for rescue vehicles or citizens, all the way to collapse of buildings, loss of property inside and even loss of life for the building's occupants.

If structural engineers seem a little withdrawn in social situations (sorry, that's a stereotype unfairly reinforced as... I.... sit alone in my office writing this blog post), it could be because they spend their time thinking about and planning for this type of nasty event on a regular basis when they are designing buildings. While no building can be considered completely safe from natural forces, a properly designed building will have a much better chance of avoiding damage than an improperly designed building. And if a better designed building does receive damage, it will still be better suited to maintain protection for property and occupants located within the building during the event.

Horizontal winds from storms like this (I'm excluding the high uplift pressures generated by a tornado) act upon on a building and can cause 4 basic types of failure. This illustration was developed by APA, The Engineered Wood Association and illustrates the general failure modes. The uplift shown below could result from horizontal winds passing over a roof shape similar to the uplift created on an airplane wing (the Bernoulli principle) or it could result from the cyclonic action of winds in a tornado although, as I've said, forces from tornado winds are generally not calculated or accounted for directly in building design or building code requirements.




In my opinion, there is also another failure type that might not be its own "General Mode", but it is different than the four shown. Internal Pressurization can occur when a large opening exists on one wall without adequate offsetting openings on adjacent or opposite walls. This creates what I loosely call a "Windsock" effect where you could have a strong wind coming into the building through a large opening and the building itself acts like the windsock with pressure building up on all surfaces whether horizontal or vertical. If the skin of the building or windows in the building shell cannot resist those pressures, local or widespread building failure could occur.

In buildings with large door openings, predicted storms like this one are good reminders to keep these doors closed during wind events like this for a couple reasons. For one thing, they will add some stiffness to the building shell to resist racking. The other thing it does is close off the end of the wind sock to prevent pressurization of the building.

Buildings still under construction are especially vulnerable to wind damage as they generally have some significant amounts of material area in place to capture wind forces, but the walls or systems to transfer that load back into the ground may not be completed, resulting in much higher stresses on certain building elements than a similar wind event would ever cause in the building once the construction of the building is complete. Temporary, or construction, bracing is usually left up to the discretion of the builder to make up for the lack of the completed building structure during this phase, but it has been my experience that this construction bracing, when present at all, is often not installed adequately to resist the loads that the completed building will be capable of.


I hope I am wrong, but I will not be surprised if some buildings under construction are damaged in some way by this impending storm. My hope in writing this post and sending it out to friends and colleagues in the building industry is that this damage can be minimized or eliminated over the next two days.

If you have any questions about this, or any other building engineering questions, feel free to call me!

Aaron Halberg, P.E.

Structural Engineering for the Minnesota Fair

I was priveleged to do some structural engineering work for a local company here in Hayward, Northwood Outdoor, on one of the 12' wide "shed" buildings that they donated for use by Ron Schara's "Minnesota Bound" to display and sell merchandise at the Minnesota State Fair. Northwood Outdoor makes some quality small buildings, used by people for a range of purposes as you can see at their website, from storing lawn and garden equipment, to children's playhouses, to bunkhouses or even portable sheds mounted on trailers. Feel free to view their website, give them a call, or stop by the next time you're in the area of Hayward, Wisconsin.

One of the primary structural engineering issues for this relatively simple building that I found very interesting, challenging, and rewarding, was justifying Northwood's method of roof construction. Typically, rafter pairs like they use are either connected to a structural ridge beam or else connected together with a minor connection at the ridge and then tied together close to the ceiling with a "collar" tie. Either method is intended to provide structural rigidity and resistance to deflection for each rafter pair so that no horizontal thrust is imparted to the tops of the load bearing walls. Some illustrations will likely be more helpful than many more words:

Structural Ridge beam provides vertical support at the ridge to prevent rafter rotation and the resulting horizontal thrust to the supporting walls. The ridge beam must be supported by endwalls or columns (not shown).

In the collar tie method of framing rafters, gusset plates or metal connectors are used to hold the rafters together at the ridge while the moment resistance to thrust is provided by the collar tie acting in tension in the lower portion of the rafter.

The stapled plywood moment plates custom-designed by Halberg Engineering for Northwood Industries is shown here as it was used in the Minnesota Bound building at the 2010 Minnesota State Fair.

In Northwood Outdoor's situation, they were looking to use their plywood gussets stapled to each side of the rafter connection at the peak as the only structural rafter connection so they could maximize interior headroom and avoid the expense and support issues of a structural ridge beam. The stapled plywood moment connection developed by Halberg Engineering allowed them to use 2x6 Machine Stress Rated rafters and the plywood gusset stapled in a specific pattern to resist the design snow loads in the Minnesota and Wisconsin areas (up to 42psf).

As you can see from the photos of the fair building, the rafters were left exposed, but other than myself and other construction professionals, I'm sure everyone was looking at the merchandise in this building instead of the rafters. I still get a kick out of the fact that we strive for properly designed structures to be relatively ignored by their occupants while they focus instead on the activities or contents within the building.

Please let me know if I can help you with something similar or if you have any questions.

Thanks!

Aaron Halberg, P.E.

Halberg Engineering

Wood Construction - Looking better all the time!

Wood seems to be the obvious choice for the structural frame work in 1 & 2 family (residential) dwellings because of it's low cost, availability, and the familiarity of the work force with the skills required to work with wood.

So what about Commercial Construction? Many commercial structures are similar to residential, but I can think of three areas that change the most when comparing the needs for these buildings:

1. The Building Code – Although building codes for Residential construction are certainly more complex and complete in their reach than they have been, there aren’t as many trade offs in code requirements for various building materials as there are in the Commercial building codes. The advantage through the code development and lobbying process that goes with it is going towards materials other than wood as the code seems to limit commercial wood construction to smaller building sizes allowed and tighter sprinkler thresholds. Your own knowledge of the building code and easy access to a good Design Professional (ahem!) will allow you to better serve your building owners as you help them successfully navigate the choppy waters of today's building codes.

2. Average Sizes and Spans – the practical limits on span and size of wood structures continue to get pushed larger as we become smarter about how we use wood and combine it with other materials to achieve amazing things. I recently saw that a prominent wood connection manufacturer is currently testing a Seven (7!) story wood building in Japan for earthquake resistance. Also, realize that metal plate connected trusses are being used to clear span 60’, 80’, even 100’+ today by using dimensional lumber with Metal Plate Connectors. Compare these spans to what was possible with traditional rafters and ridge beams or rafters and collar ties that was the norm 2 generations ago and is still used in many residential buildings today. The irony is that the average size of available wood coming out of our forests is shrinking, but producers of engineered products are making stronger, straighter, and more reliable wood building materials out of these raw materials. This progress allows spans in wood construction today at the higher commercial floor and roof load requirements (of the building code, see #1) that would not be conceivable with the wood products available just a decade or two ago. Engineered use of Wood is making a difference!

3. Construction Budget – Typically higher for Commercial vs. Residential, however I think that this generalization has reversed its trend over the past 20 years as many new houses over the last decade have still been built much larger than needed (“McMansions”) while many businesses and multi-family developments are looking to build with the minimum capital requirement because the financial conditions reward the projects with the best cash flow, or return on investment. Advantage in the cost department: Wood!

There is another issue where wood has a clear advantage when comparing building materials and that is overall sustainability. The issue is quite simple but has been made complex in an by various political and special interest groups lately.

More about sustainability soon, but for now keep in mind, wood is good!

• Wood uses a very efficient and natural form of solar energy for its production (Photosynthesis!)... very little energy is required to harvest and process it
• Wood can be naturally grown and replaced faster than it's rate of consumption without sacrificing the environment in the process (now THAT'S sustainable!)
• Wood is easy to recycle or reuse or compost
• Wood buildings, when properly constructed, can last as long as any other material used in construction today.

Plan Review of Lighting for Commercial Buildings in Wisconsin

reposted here from Safety & Buildings website:
Wisconsin Safety and Buildings Announcement
January 29, 2009

Subject: Reemphasis on commercial buildings general lighting plans and about submittal of emergency lighting plans.

General lighting and emergency lighting will receive more emphasis during commercial buildings plan reviews by Safety and Buildings Division staff effective March 2, 2009. The Wisconsin Commercial Building Code has included requirements for illumination and electrical energy efficiency since 1980.
S&B has been flexible over time about requesting submittal and approval of lighting design plans and calculations. At times division staff have asked for more lighting information than at other times. Whether submitted for review or not, lighting code compliance has been necessary. S&B will renew review of general lighting plans because of concerns that compliance with recent energy efficiency code changes has not been demonstrated.
In March of 2008, substantial emergency lighting and lighting energy efficiency changes occurred; some of the energy efficiency factors have become 30 - 40 percent more stringent. With our nation's and state's focus on building lifetime energy usage, the building lighting designs need to be clearly recognized as consequential.The specific aspect of plan review of emergency lighting plans, important to the safety of occupants and first responders, comes from field observations that some emergency lighting installations are not meeting code requirements. The fact that emergency lighting is often installed late in construction, even after partial occupancy of a building, may have led to less-than-necessary coordination of egress paths and emergency lighting design and installation.
Beginning March 2, 2009, submittal of general lighting plans and emergency lighting plans will be required by the Safety and Buildings Division for plan reviews for: - New buildings; - Additions to buildings;- Initial tenant build-outs within buildings for which initial plans were received on or after March 2.
For plans received on or after March 2, 2009, if S&B commercial building plan reviewers find general lighting and emergency lighting plans have not been submitted for review with the initial building plan review, the reviewers will contact the designer with the option of the designer providing lighting plans as part of the immediate review. If the designer chooses to not do so, the general lighting plan and emergency lighting plan can be submitted later, before installation, for separate plan review.
Fees for the plan reviews are not increased:- For general lighting or emergency lighting plans submitted with building or HVAC plans, there will be no additional fee. (Overall fee calculated per code, Comm 2.31.)
For lighting plans submitted separate from building or HVAC plans, the fee will be the current $75 revision plus the $100 submittal fee, a total of $175. (Per Comm 2.31(1)(f).)
For submittal of plans after construction, the standard late submittal fee of $250 will be assessed, as well as the $100 submittal fee, for a total of $350. (Per Comm 2.31(1)(d)6.)
See the S&B WebSite for general lighting and emergency lighting code and submittal information.

Environmentally Friendly Materials and Practices

A great definition of sustainable construction was presented by Professor David Bohnhoff at this year's Wisconsin Frame Builders Association conference during his discussion of "green" practices:
"Sustainable Construction meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Prof. Bohnhoff also pointed out that, in almost every measure, when you look at the factors that go into making a building the most affordable it can be, you are also making the building the most environmentally friendly that it can be. This is a direct result of the fact that much of the cost that goes into a project reflects the recouping the costs of the embodied energy, or the energy required to produce, use, and dispose of the building at the end of its life. The less energy required, the lower the impact on the environment, and less energy also translates to lower cost. Post frame construction is a Win-Win-Win in this regard.

In another point of the discussion, minimizing the life cycle energy costs to condition our occupied spaces leads us to make our spaces as energy efficient as possible to start using less energy per unit of occupied space as soon as possible. This is basically a reason to perform construction sooner than later at any time as improvement in energy efficiency serves as a positive return on investment with constant energy costs, but that return rate would improve in a scenario of increasing energy prices.

So, if you're going to build a structure that uses less energy to condition, you should also look at minimizing the total material usage (embodied energy) that goes into the building. Some types of structures are not particularly efficient, including Timber-frame construction and even full log construction if the logs are harvested, debarked and shpaed on a site away from the buildnig site. The amount of material used can be minimized in our building shapes by looking at regular shaped buildings with good aspect ratios (length to width), not too square (inefficient for natural lighting and structural framing) yet not too narrow (inefficient for energy loss because of high exterior wall area per unit of floor area).

Post Frame construction is just one of many options for energy efficient and environmentally friendly construction although it is obvious that wood material is a replenishable resource (trees, switchgrass, corn: all are "biomass"). But even concrete can be made in more environmentally friendly today when the heat used to produce the concrete is recovered waste heat from other emission systems. This drastically lowers the embodied energy in concrete.

Professor Bohnhoff made some great points about why we should be very wary of mandated green building standards as we've seen over and over again that standards tend to stifle creativity and innovation, which is really what leads us to improvements in all areas of our society. The man-made impact on Global warming should be held in suspicion as many of the promoters of that theory are using more fear and less facts which seems to move towards mandated standards to combat such a large problem, regardless of the cost of implementing those standards.

In so many ways, there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of the built environment as the quality of materials improve, innovative use of energy continues, and intelligent choice of building design continues to get better.

Sprinkler Requirements in New Code

A flexible expansion of fire sprinkler protections in apartment buildings and an update to 2006 model building and fire codes are features of Wisconsin commercial building and fire codes changes adopted November 7, 2007, by the state Department of Commerce. After several years of development, with input from people throughout Wisconsin and review by the legislature, changes to Comm 60-66, Commercial Building Code, and Comm 14, Fire Prevention Code, are expected to go into effect on March 1, 2008.

For new construction, a significant increase in the multifamily buildings provided with fire sprinklers was modified by phasing in the new fire sprinkler protection. The phase-in will provide sprinkler installation in 2008 for new construction of multifamily buildings of more than eight units, and will be lowered in 2011 to new multifamily dwellings of three or more units. (See Section 68 in adopted draft for phase-in.)

The new rules will provide adjusted sprinkler coverage for three- and four-unit dwellings not served by municipal water systems or private community wells. Such buildings will be able to have systems conforming with NFPA 13D, a standard for dwellings that allows lower water usage while protecting lives from fire. (See Table 62.0903 and following and Section 74 in adopted draft.)

Sprinkler protection changes will not affect existing buildings or new one- and two-family homes.

Existing buildings coverted to residential use may require sprinkler protection. Building construction plan submittals made before the code change effective date to the Department of Commerce or delegated plan review municipalities will be reviewed under the old/current code.

Submittals after the effective date will use the new code provisions, with a few vital exceptions dealing with initiated, ongoing projects. (See Sections 29m, 30, and 30m in adopted draft for extensions of review.)

New printed copies of the Wisconsin commercial building and fire prevention codes are expected to be available from state Document Sales in February. The 2006 versions of the adopted national model codes can be obtained from the International Code Council, http://www.iccsafe.org/ and the National Fire Protection Association, http://www.nfpa.org/, respectively.

There will not be a new "Enrolled Code," which has been a printed combination of the Wisconsin and model building codes. Instead, the Safety and Buildings Division will put code insert pages on the Internet in early 2008. The pages will be designed to fit Wisconsin code provisions into the loose leaf versions of adopted model codes.

The adopted draft of the code changes is available on Commerce's Safety and Buildings Division Website.People wishing to follow the process of bringing the code changes into fruition can become part of the S&B commercial buildings, fire prevention, or fire protection email groups, http://commerce.wi.gov/SB/SB-DivEmailSignup.html.

This update was originally posted on the Wisconsin Safety & Buildings website.

Is it easy being Green?

According to Kermit the Frog, "It's not easy being green." (I believe he also said "Times fun when you're having flies.") I wonder if Kermit's song lamenting the color green was a result of not knowing about the environmental advantages of Post Frame Construction? Probably not.

Yet it seems to me that as people learn about environmentally friendly building systems, or "Green Buildings", they will discover the advantages of building with the easily renewable, reusable, and highly resilient resource: Wood! I believe we have been given this renewable resource to use intelligently with proper technical knowledge, and also to harvest it in an efficient manner.

There will undoubtedly be more and more emphasis on this topic as time goes on since people have become very politically and emotionally engaged in the move to cause no damage to our environment and to reverse the effects of damage done in the past. While I don't agree that we had the power to change the global climate that many are giving us credit for, I do believe we should do what we can to be good stewards of this world in all of its natural wonders.

One of the green building rating systems is supported by the Green Building Initiative headquartered in Portland, Oregon. The GBI uses a Green Globes rating system. What exactly is Green Globes? According to their web site at http://www.thegbi.org/:

Green Globes is an easy-to-use online assessment tool that reduces your risk and speeds ROI by providing continuous feedback on project ratings as you move through the certification process. Green Globes was adapted from a green certification tool in use in Canada for over 10 years.

Mark Rossolo from the GBI presented an interesting talk at the NFBA Expo last week in Columbus, Ohio, and as I understand it, the Green Globes rating system is approved as an ANSI standard and will result in green projects being rated on a Green Globes scale of 1 Globe to 4 Globes with 4 Globes being the highest rating.

GBI offers a free 30 day trial to the Green Globes online assessment tool for one project which I will be trying myself over the upcoming weeks, in addition to attending a free online webinar on Feb. 27th at noon Central time. You can register for this webinar yourself at the GBI website here.

Over the next weeks and months, I will be investigating the Green Building ratings for wood frame structures, specifically Post Frame structures which, because of their efficient use of wood framing members and ability to use a minimum of steel and concrete, should be among the highest rated green buildings available today. I will report back here soon to keep you up to date on what I am learning.

Have a great day!

Aaron

Wisconsin to Adopt IBC 2006

The State of Wisconsin, in addition to being the home of the Green Bay Packers and Halberg Engineering, is also the home of the oldest building code in the Union. The state-specific code changed for the first time in July of 2002 when Wisconsin adopted the 2000 edition of the International Building Code (IBC). The adoption of the 2006 is currently underway and is in the hands of the State Legislature.

I learned today that the anticipated date of enforcement for the new building code in Wisconsin is March 1, 2008.

Building plan submittals that are received at a State Safety & Buildings office before this date will be reviewed under the current code (IBC 2000 with ammendments) and building plan submittals received at a plan review office on or after March 1, 2008 (or the final date of enforcement) will be reviewed to the IBC 2006-based code.

Just one example of changes in the 2006 code, A-2 Assembly occupancies (Restaurants, Taverns, Banquet Halls) currently have a sprinkler requirement for occupant loads of 300 people, but the 2006 IBC code requires sprinkler systems at an occupant load of 100 people or more. Of course the code is a relatively complex set of documents and standards, so I would always encourage owners and general contractors to work with their Design Professional as early in the design process as possible to ensure that any advantage available may be obtained by performing the plan submittal before or after the March 1, 2008 implementation date.

Minnesota Adoption of 2006 "I"-Codes

Minnesota recently announced the adoption of the 2006 I-Codes (IBC, IRC, etc.) now expected to take effect July 10, 2007. In a memo to all building code officials from Thomas C. Anderson, State Building Official, (available at http://www.doli.state.mn.us/pdf/ccld_code_transition_2007_1.pdf) guidance on transitioning to the new code is outlined. Specifically for projects that were issued permits before July 10th, those who had permits applied for but not received as of July 10th, and for those permit applications received after July 10th.

Additional building code information for the State of Minnesota is available at the Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry web site: http://www.doli.state.mn.us/buildingcodes.html

Post Frame Ring Shank Nails in NDS!

During a revision of ASTM standard F1667 a few years back, ring shank nails were removed from the standard and were subsequently dropped from recent editions of the National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction. Now, thanks to the work of the NFBA T&R Committee under the lead of Patrick M. McGuire, P.E. and with special effort on his part, the ring shank nails are acknowledged by the American Wood Council of the American Forest & Paper Association, keepers of the NDS.

In a just released update to the NDS in the form of NDS Design Aid No. 4, ring shank nails are making their return to the NDS under the new name of "Post Frame Ring Shank Nails". The design aid contains design values for single shear connections to supplement Table 11N (wood to wood) and Table 11P (steel plate to wood). The design aid can be found at http://www.awc.org/pdf/DA4-RingShank.pdf

The NFBA T&R committee has been prioritizing this issue pretty highly in recent years to not only reinstate the nails as part of the standard but also to re-evaluate the design values that were allowed for these nails, believing that specific testing and research will result in more accurate and higher allowable loads for both shear and withdrawal values for use in design.

So, although this release of Design Aid No. 4 is a significant step, the design values it contains are limited to shear values only and these are not significantly higher than a similarly sized common nail. Testing currently being performed for the NFBA should provide the basis for justifying higher allowable shear loads and also the withdrawal values in future editions of the NDS.

Complying with the Notice Of Intent (NOI)

The Notice of Intent to disturb ground surface is an obligation for all construction sites of residential and commercial buildings. Starting April 1st, 2007, there are new procedures and filing requirements in place for complying with these obligations on construction projects. I encourage you to read the full explanation of the process and the new changes in a recent post I made on this site called "Soil & Sediment Control and Stormwater Changes".

For projects that will disturb a TOTAL area that is less than 1 acre in size, the control practices are required to be used, including
- Some form of perimeter control (silt fence, as an example)
- Means of keeping soil from leaving site on vehicle tires
- Onsite inlet protection
- Stockpile Protection

For projects that will disturb 1 acre or more throughout the life of the project, there are additional requirements including the filing of a Notice Of Intent (NOI). A plan summary is required to be submitted along with the NOI submittal for all commercial buildings.

At this time, I am recommending all of our builder clients become familiar with this process and involve the Owner's directly in this process on new projects and NOT rely on Halberg Engineering to complete this obligation. The reason is that the Owner / Owner's Agent is going to be required to "monitor and maintain the erosion control measures on the site as per the plan. This includes documenting in a log book, a record of the owner/owner's agent site inspections and maintenance events."

This obligation for site erosion control lies with the Owner and, if delegated to others, needs to be delegated to someone with frequent access to the site and adequate responsibility to control the conditions on the site. The builder seems to be in the obvious situation to best provide this service for the Owner.

Is it something that we could consider just one more legislative hoop to jump through?
Yes.
Is it something that could provide some real benefit to the owner and to our natural resources?
I really believe so.

Most of us might agree that it is difficult to legislate reason and responsibility, but the motives for this legislation appear to be necessary due to many violations of reason in this area in many past projects.

Halberg Engineering can provide assistance in understanding and complying with these requirements. If you have questions after reviewing the information available here, please let us know how we can help!

Soil & Sediment Control and Stormwater Changes

The following letter was received by Aaron Halberg, P.E. on March 30th via e-mail from Randy Baldwin, Director, Integrated Services for the Safety & Buildings Division of the Wisconsin Department of Commerce along with his apology for the late notice due to many last minute decisions:

APRIL 1 SOIL & SEDIMENT CONTROL AND STORMWATER CHANGES

Revisions to the Commerce erosion control and post construction storm water rules become effective on April 1, 2007. The changes to the mandated measures, additional performance requirements and processes are not enough of a change to cause a tremendous shock to Wisconsin’s construction industry, but the heightened awareness and subtle changes may create a tremor.

First of all, what’s changing? Here is a list of what will be different for erosion and sediment control in Wisconsin on April 1, 2007.

* A $25.00 fee must be included with the submittal of an electronic NOI (Notice of Intent) for a commercial building site where one acre or more surface area will be disturbed during construction.

* A $325.00 fee for a paper submittal of an NOI and plan summary. The paper submittal of an NOI and erosion and sediment control plan summary may be necessary when the online NOI process does not match your design methodology..

* NOI submittals to Commerce for commercial buildings will not be accepted without a plan summary. This plan summary will state what methods are included in the erosion and sediment control plan for meetings the performance requirements of Comm 60.

There are three options for this plan summary.
1) The first method is a completed soil loss analysis Excel spreadsheet that creates an answer that complies with the soil loss requirements in Comm 60. This soil loss standard is met by altering the time the site is open or by applying practices to the site.
2) The second method is by complying with the time periods listed in the appendix tables A-60.20-1 and -2.
3) The third method includes the submission of an erosion control plan summary that meets the 80% reduction in sediment contained in runoff from the construction site.

* All buildings constructed in Wisconsin that are under Commerce authority, including one- and two-family dwellings, are required to have an erosion and sediment control plan on site. The plan must meet the requirements of s. Comm 21.125 (3) or s. Comm 60.20(3), Wis. Adm. Code. In most cases, mandated practices create a compliant small site of less than one acre disturbed area.

* All building sites of less than one acre disturbed area must have the mandated practices implemented during the construction period The mandated practices include: some form of perimeter control, a means to keep soil from leaving the site on vehicle tires and through dewatering activities, onsite inlet protection, and stockpile protection.

April 1 Notice of Intent Changes Implementation—FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDING SITES

Information, answers to questions, on line educational opportunities for these subjects, etc. can be found on http://www.commerce.state.wi.us/SB/SB-SoilErosionControlProgram.html

On Friday March 30 at 4:00 PM the current web submittal for Notice of Intents will be shut down for conversion to the new application.

After that time, if you want to file an NOI under the pre-April 1 code you must send in the paper Form Number10376 found on our web site at the link below and have the mailing postmarked March 31, 2007 or earlier. http://www.commerce.state.wi.us/SB/SB-DivForms.html#commercial

On Monday April 2 the new version of the Notice of Intent/Plan Data Summary will be activated for web submittal. Click on Number 3 at the link below. http://commerce.wi.gov/SB/SB-DivPlanRevSchedLaunch.html


NOTICE OF INTENT-SOIL EROSION CONTROL PLAN REVIEW PROCESS

Beginning April 1, 2007

The designer/Submitter of the NOI will evaluate the site conditions, determine solutions and prepare a plan to satisfy erosion-and sediment control code requirements

The designer/submitter of NOI will double check the plan using the approved methods from
the code appendix, or the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) spreadsheet found on the Safety & Building website and incorporated in the online submittal, or RUSLE 2 program developed by the USDA or some other method acceptable by the department.

Submit via Mandatory online entry of the plan summary and NOI request except for site specific plans that do not comply with the approved methodologies in the code appendix, or the RUSLE spreadsheet, or RUSLE 2.
If the RUSLE method is chosen the submitter will have to complete the spreadsheet on line. The results will be validated and the submittal will not be allowed to be completed until the summary indicates a complying soil loss per acre.

(If your plan is based on a method other than the approved methodologies in the code appendix, or the RUSLE spreadsheet, or RUSLE 2, plan submittal must be done by paper. This paper submittal requirement is also for designs where the overall soil loss is determined using the RUSLE spread sheet for various parts of a site. The fee is the $25 NOI fee +$200 miscellaneous review fee + $100 submittal fee. Submit to our Madison office only. Plans will be assigned upon receipt to the next available opening).

$25 online payment can be made via credit card, or request by the submitter to be invoiced. For the first few weeks in April the credit card functionality will not be ready. Instead, the Submitter of the NOI will be invoiced for the $25. Payment is expected within 30 days of receiving the invoice.

Submitter agrees to self certify compliance (remember to check the box on the web screen first, then submit).

The plan methodology summary and site information is accepted into our database. The data is auto filled into an electronic calculator that determines whether or not the plan meets the acceptable soil loss per acre standard.

An NOI acknowledgement letter/plan summary approval is emailed to the Submitter of NOI and other entered customers for which email addresses were provided.

The NOI acknowledgement /plan summary approval letter is printed and signed by the OWNER . The owner or owner’s agent attaches a copy of the signed NOI acknowledgement letter to the prepared erosion-sediment control plan and maintains those on the building site.

The owner/owner’s agent implements and maintains the Erosion and Sediment Control plan on the site. The owner/owner’s agent monitors and maintains the erosion control measures on the site as per the plan. This includes documenting in a log book, a record of the owner/owner’s agent site inspections and maintenance events. This log book is kept on the building site and available for inspection.

Inspectors make periodic site visits to monitor erosion-sediment control compliance.

Acknowledged NOI’s will be displayed on the web in the “Search Commerce Records” database by Fall 2007.

At this time, submitters have a choice to submit the NOI’s and plan summary to the Department of Commerce or to Commercial Building Certified Municipalities for projects within their jurisdiction, unless that municipality chooses to waive the submittal to Commerce.
Inspection is the responsibility of the Certified Municipality. The municipality may also require other local reviews and permits.

Commercial Building Delegated Agents are not mentioned in Comm 60 at this time. In the future, Commerce will work with municipalities for the delegation of erosion and sediment control & post construction storm work.

Where plumbing systems are utilized for stormwater management, plumbing plans are required to be submitted to Commerce or to a Plumbing Agent Municipality in accordance with Tables 82.20 -1 & 2. If the plans include subsurface infiltration serving stormwater dispersal, the plans must be submitted to Commerce or, if, within their boundaries, to the City of Eau Claire, Janesville, Madison, Sheboygan.

New Soil Erosion Rules

There are new Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Rules for the State of Wisconsin which go into effect April 1, 2007. To help educate builders and those associated with commercial and residential building projects get up to speed on this topic, the Wisconsin Builders Association and the Wisconsin Chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. are sponsoring training workshops around the state.

For $60 ($30 to members) the 3.5 hour workshop will share information on Erosion Prevention, Sediment Control, De-watering, Inspections, Documentation, Final Stabilization and a Q&A Session. Workshops will be held from 1pm to 4:30pm in the following cities:

Wausau - March 22

Madison - March 27

Rice Lake - April 3

LaCrosse - April 5

Fond du Lac - April 11

Green Bay - April 26

As the promotional brochure and registration form (available online) reads:

"DID YOU KNOW...These rules establish performance standards for practices to address erosion and sediment control on sites where land-disturbing construction activity is to occur, regardless of the size of the site, and these rules update both the WI Uniform Dwelling Code and the WI Commercial Building Code?

AND DID YOU KNOW...These rules further establish monitoring and maintenance provision for erosion and sediment control?

NO?

Then you need to attend this brief afternoon workshop to learn the new requirements."

Additional information from the Safety & Building Division on the topic of Soil Erosion Control is available on their website at http://commerce.wi.gov/SB/SB-SoilErosionControlProgram.html

Mezzanine and Egress - Code Questions

In a series of discussions on the building code, I'd like to start today with some thoughts on the building code in general and also about accessibility... specifically for Mezzanines and for accessible egress.

It is always interesting when one of my clients calls out of the blue with a question for me. I never know where the discussion will lead. Helping find the answers to these questions is one of my favorite parts of this job. It can be overwhelming at times, but I am thankful that I can help in this area, so please keep them coming and I'll keep on learning right along with you. I believe we need to keep learning every day and take an interest in the well-being of others. Your questions give me the opportunity to do both!

Thoughts on the Building Code
The building code identifies minimum requirements and we're always free to exceed these requirements in terms of safety, accessibility, and Structural Integrity. We often want to know what the Minimum Requirements are since, except for lottery winners, the project owners typically have limited resources at their disposal.

The building code dictates what we must do in certain areas of our construction projects, and we offset these requirements by building smaller or spending more to provide the dictated features, such as firewalls, sprinklers, and accessibility. In certain situations where expectations of the building code requirements are not clear up front, the code requirements may halt the project as financially infeasible.

Despite the "Thou shalt..." tone, the building code does have a benefit for the safety of the public in mind. We actually heard of commercial roof collapses during the recent snow falls in the Wisconsin... mostly flat roofs as far as I've heard (none of your projects, I'm sure). But in 2006 we saw the collapse of an ice arena in Germany claim 11 lives and 67 lives were lost in the collapse of a Polish trade hall, so we do have cause to say that some measure of rational design is required to insure the safety of the public.

Accessible Mezzanines
Are mezzanines required to be accessible to the wheelchair bound? I sure didn't think so earlier today. Small mezzanines have certainly been approved without an elevator or accessible ramps, but the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code requires all elements of a our commercial buildings to be accessible, with some exceptions.

The exception for non-accessible mezzanines is in Comm 62.1104(4)(b), and states that floors above and below accessible levels with an aggregate area of not more than 3,000 sq. ft. do not require an accessible route to them. In other words, if your mezzanine will be over 3,000 sq. ft., reason for concern, but the cause may not be lost.

Since code questions are typically more simple than the answers: There are some provisions in Comm 62.1003(2)(h) and (i) which identify some general exceptions to accessibility requirements which allow Limited access spaces (h) and Equipment Maintenance and Repair areas (i) not to be accessible. These areas are viewed by the code as areas where work could not reasonably be performed by a person in a wheelchair and so it negates the requirement for an accessible route to them.

Accessible Means of Egress
The building code requires at least one accessible entrance to commercial buildings, but two accessible egresses. It means we may have a door from a building that could be used during emergency as an accessible egress (when the building's on fire) with the assistance of others which would not be an accessible entrance during normal operation of the building.

The accessible entrance is viewed as an equal access provision to provide equal access opportunity in public buildings. The accessible egress is a life safety issue that allows for the fact that during an emergency (fire, for example), the entrance used to gain access to the building may be blocked by the situation causing the emergency. It is assumed that egress may be accomplished by people working together in the event of getting a wheelchair down a flight of steps during an emergency as long as provisions are made for the person in a wheelchair to have access to communication for assistance from a relatively safe and secure location.

These concepts are covered in the code by the terms "Areas of Refuge" (IBC 1003.2.13.5) and "Exterior Areas for Assisted Rescue" (IBC 1003.2.13.7). In building projects without complete accessibility going into and out of the building, remember to consider the egress requirements during emergency situations. It is not enough to say that "nobody in a wheelchair works here and wouldn't have a reason to come here". Public buildings must not be designed with an inherently dangerous situation based on the assumptions of what level of physical ability people must possess before they use that building. That is a type of discrimination we cannot tolerate.