Contact Us   |   Sign In   |   Register

Log in

Interpretations Request Input

Original Request

  • Request ID: 8549
  • Requested By: Samuel Cassity
  • Requester E-Mail: Sam@ZAArch.com
  • Code Version: 2021
  • Code: ENERGY
  • Code Description:
  • Chapter:
  • Section: TABLE C402.1.3
  • Topic: CLIMATE ZONE 2, ALL OTHER, MASS, R-5.7ci, Note c
  • Question: Does a typical CMU building with #5 rebar at 4'-0" o.c. maximum in solid concrete fill and 16" deep bond beam at top of an 8'-0" wall qualify as a MASS Building?
  • Comment: None
  • Attachment 1: Download

Existing Interpretations and/or Declaratory Statements Related to this request

Input Received:

This would be up to the designer to provide the calculations on this wall.
agree with David. It is up to the design professional.
Agree, but see what defines the "mass walls" in Section C402.2.1.
I don't know about a mass building, but it would be a mass wall for energy purposes. While the commercial section of the FBC-EC does not define mass walls, the residential portion does have a definition. The code permits the use of definitions from other volumes of the code when a term is not defined in the volume in question.
I agree with Joe.

Answer:

This would be up to the designer to provide the calculations on this wall.

Commentary:

It could be a mass wall for energy purposes. While the commercial section of the FBC-EC does not define mass walls, the residential portion does have a definition. The code permits the use of definitions from other volumes of the code when a term is not defined in the volume in question.

Comments on Draft:

Concur with response
Agree with response
May want to re-word it. Put the first sentence at the end and maybe write it this way -
Refer to Section C402.2.1 for examples of mass walls.
1. It is a mass wall because it does not match any of the other choices in that section of the chart, and 2. footnote c states that you can substitute the continuous insulation with an ungrouted masonry wall, so the wall described exceeds the minimum standards of footnote c.
Agree and I would recommend including the Comment by Tim Moore.
Concur with response
agree
Why did we get this again? I agree with Tim Moore. This is a mass wall.
Sorry, I see why we got it again.