To ICC, or not ICC, that is the Question
WHY DO SOME TRUSSES "REQUIRE" AN ICC REPORT?
- Usually when one wishes to state tested values and/or design methodologies, in a standardized format that yield a strength and performance result in excess of that which can be attained via calculation using code-accepted engineering practices.
WHY DOESN'T THE G2T "REQUIRE" AN ICC REPORT?
- The G2T is designed using code accepted engineering practices via calculations that yield an industry-leading strength and performance. (Much akin to how an EOR would design his/her shear wall).
The Devil is in the "Deferred Submittal"
TIMING IS EVERYTHING (WHY DO WE WAIT?)
- EOR has to re-visit the project long after he was otherwise "done"
- Architect forced to compromise his/her original intent within the floor or roof system long after the building's design was "assumed" complete. (tail is wagging the dog)
- MEP subs having to change their designs based on changes to the truss system when "deferred submittal" approach was used
- Inevitably, a "deferred submittal" risks the project's schedule
- "Deferred submittal" puts undo, and cost increasing pressures upon the truss manufacturers' design and production departments (a rush to mediocrity and mistakes)
- "Deferred submittal" and liquidated damage avoidance, do not mix
- Missed opportunities for value engineering
- Creates undo time constraints/dependence on the Building Department Review (and they are never liable)