Tag Archives: Peer Review

Should I be designing my storm shelter per the ICC-500 or the FEMA P-361?

Recently we have had a couple clients ask about community storm shelter peer reviews and why we are peer reviewing the designs per the ICC-500 and not the FEMA P-361?  The simplest answer is the ICC-500 is a standard that is tied directly to the building code and the FEMA P-361 is a guideline.  The ICC-500 must be followed if you are designing a storm shelter using the IBC 2009 or later.  The FEMA P-361 guidelines may also be required if the storm shelter is funded by a FEMA grant.

The next question we are often asked is if there are discrepancies between the two documents? That question can be answered by the FEMA P-361 Appendix D which is a “Comparison Matrix of Differences between ICC 500 Requirements and FEMA Recommended Criteria.”  As you can see by the provided matrix the main differences are in regards to coastal flooding shelters and first aid kits.

Thanks for following, and remember.  Ask questions, do your research, and make an informed decision. The lives of you or others may depend on it.

Written by Shauna Schultz, AIA

Tornado Shelters-ICC-500 2014 Commentary is Available

It’s been a while since our last blog….”We’ve been busy!”

I just received my OFFICIAL copy of the ICC 500-2014 Standard and COMMENTARY!  We were one of several volunteers that help write the commentary.  It can be purchased from the International Code Council at www.iccsafe.org for about $42.00.  You can get either soft bound or a PDF copy.  There is a discount for ICC members.

Even after being involved, I am a little disappointed in some aspects of the commentary.  The volunteer committee had the opportunity to review and comment on an early draft copy of the commentary.  Unfortunately, at least in my case, many of my comments were not addressed.  In the end, the volunteer committee was not given an opportunity to review the final draft of the document and subsequently, in my humble opinion, there are mistakes.  I believe once it is read through, those issues will be glaring to a designer.  Bear in mind that a large portion of the commentary was written by those that do not design or produce shelters and therefore do not understand the real world ramifications of the commentary, the code standard, and/or the building code.

I will point out one of the least problematic mistakes….in the credits, they have our firm name as “Schultz Architects, LLC”.  I guess someone could not figure out what “Squared” meant.  With all the free time and effort that this company has put forth for this document, you would think….Needless to say, not happy!!!!  That is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg!

If someone can explain figure 304.9 to me, I would GREATLY appreciate it!  Also, watch out for 309.1 comments!

It’s unfortunate but now that it is published, “it is what it is”!

Be careful out there!

Written by Corey Schultz, AIA, LEED BD+C

 

Tornado Shelters – Peer Reviews

Being an architect, I can say that for some reason it is in our nature, the architectural community, never to turn work down unless, we feel that it is WAY over our heads to provide services on a particular project UNLESS we are willing to find a consultant that can help us through…..on everything except tornado shelters.  I just don’t get it!  It appears that a majority, not all, but a majority feel that shelters are nothing more than adding a little more rebar in the walls, putting those shutter “thingies” over the windows, installing vault doors, and putting concrete or dirt on the roof.  “I’m done!  Problem solved!”  Unfortunately, it is well beyond those issues, WELL BEYOND!

And because of these reasons, the ICC-500 and the FEMA 361 call for peer reviews as a shelter/safe room requirement for both architectural (coming in the next editions) and structural (current requirement) for any shelter that protects more than 50 occupants.  It is a second set of eyes to help assure that the end users of that shelter are safe in a tornadic event.  THAT’S IT!!!

So, if I were a designer that had never done a shelter but just could not turn down the project due to lack of experience, it would be a REALLY good idea for that designer to get their shelter peer reviewed by someone that has some shelter experience.  BETTER YET, put them on the design team so that intelligent decisions can be made through out the process!  OMG, what a novel idea?  OR if I were an experienced shelter/safe room designer, wouldn’t the second set of eyes be a good idea anyway?  You need to avoid the temptation of hiring your buddy at another firm that knows nothing about shelter design, to review your shelters and you’ll review his.  The “scratch mine/scratch yours” scenario.  That’s a lose/lose situation!  You may save a little money but your neck just become as long as a giraffe’s!  AND a big target for a law suit should something go wrong!

I have had the opportunity to conduct peer reviews for six other architects in the past couple of years, which has amounted to 14 different tornado shelter/safe room.  And out of all 14 projects, not a single one of them were without several issues.  These are what I would consider really good architectural firms and half of them were experienced shelter designers!  And that is only on the architectural side of things.  Not sure where they stood on the structural reviews.

Peer reviews are important.  Peer reviews are something that should not be left until the end of the construction document phase.  Why?  How many architects out there have enough working budget to redo the project if the shelter was completely botched?  Not many that I know.  So then what happens?  Poor decision making?  YES!  Justifying design mistakes?  YES!  And who knows what else!  Peer reviews should start at the schematic design level and continue throughout the design process.

So check your egos at the door and find someone to watch over your shoulder.  Someone’s life and/or your livelihood as an architect/engineer could depend on it!!!

Be careful out there!

Post by Corey Schultz, AIA, LEED AP BD+C