FBC 2001 Code

What are the main points of the FBC 2001 changes as they relate to the 1802 form? What makes homes complying with FBC 2001 better/stronger than homes that don’t?


The first consistent code through the state with updates because of Andrew.


The 2001 Florida Building Code (the Code). This single statewide unified code is developed and maintained by the Florida Building Commission. It is administered and enforced by local jurisdictions and certain state agencies which may, under certain strictly defined conditions, amend requirements to be more stringent. The reformed building code system also establishes accountability for licensed contractors and designers and for local enforcement jurisdictions. It also establishes building code education requirements for all licensees and uniform procedures and quality control in a product approval system.

The Florida Building Code is the work product of hundreds of building designers, contractors, regulators and other interested parties. Its development spanned two and one half years and involved more than one hundred thousand hours of volunteer and staff time. The majority of the Code is derived from the base codes and the efforts of the organizations which developed and maintain these codes and the standards referenced within them.

The base codes include: the Standard Building Code, 1997 edition; the National Electrical Code©, 1999 edition; the Standard Plumbing Code, 1997 edition; the International Mechanical Code, 1998 edition; the International Fuel Gas Code, 1997 edition; and, structural requirements of the South Florida Building Code as they apply to the “High Velocity Hurricane Zone.” State codes adopted include the Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction and the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction and the Fair Housing Guidelines.

The Standard Building Code, 1997 edition is almost identical to the 1994 Standard Building Code. Therefore the 2001 Florida Building Code is basically the same as the 1994 Standard Building Code with the addition of the Broward Edition of the South Florida Building Code 1996 Edition for the HVHZ.

Also, for better understanding of wind load designs, the first wind load codes were adopted by the Standard Building Code in 1977 (ANSI A58.1). This design incorporated a fast-mile wind speed which is calculated by determining the time it takes wind to travel 1 mile in distance. This type of calculation continued until the American Society of Civil engineers took it over in 1998 and formulated ASCE-7, it was then revised in the South Florida Building Code in 1994 to include SSTD-12 for glazed opening protection and conversion from fast-mile wind speed to 3 second gust (with a few other changes).

In 1974, Florida adopted uniform building codes, Dade and Broward went with the South Florida Building Code and the rest of the state went with the Standard Building Code. At the time of Andrew, Florida had the most stringent building codes for wind load design in the country. But, that means nothing if it’s not being enforced, and that’s what lead to most of the damages to newer homes after Andrew.

Structures built to the 1994 Standard Building Code would essentially be compliant with the 2001 Florida Building Code if the structure had shutters installed properly over all glazed openings.

Typo: ASCE-7 took over ANSI A58.1 in 1988, not 1998…

Back on my soap box!

You want to know the real problem with this form and the people who provide education on how to complete it? None of them, not one, teaches mitigation…all they teach is the form from the outside in. Better yet, I have yet to meet one educator teaching this form who even understood what mitigation was or how it is incorporated into design features and the building codes. That’s not meant to be an insult to anyone, but a wake up call.

In order to teach you mitigation, so that no matter how the form changed or what structure you were applying it to, you could complete the form accurately…3 weeks and 120 hours, just to scratch the surface.

Case in point, I had a detailed conversation with multiple Engineers responsible for a case study on the 1802 in 2011. A “report card” so to speak. They confirmed exactly what my suspicions were, that non-hip features are not just limited to low-slope roofing systems and gables! Roof geometry is complicated and takes a detailed understanding of the original design of the structure. You can’t get this information from just measuring the perimeter or a visual assessment of the roof shape.

It would literally take me 3 days to walk you through understanding glazed opening protection and impact rated fenestrations…minimum 3 days. To date, I have yet to inspect a single structure with hurricane shutters installed correctly. Don’t believe me, ask any shutter contractor what the minimum embedment for drop-in lead anchors would be to the face of the plaster, most will not know. Also what they don’t know is the minimum thickness of the plaster and the fact that after they set the anchor the minimum embedment to the face of the anchor form the face of the plaaster in CMU should be 5/8". It never is.

Happy 4th of July all!

I don’t know. You can drive yourself crazy with stuff like this. It reminds me of refurbishing an old home. You can keep trying to get it more and more perfect, but the more you do, the more you uncover that needs to be done. At some point, you just have to draw a line and stop. A- work is profitable. A+ work often isn’t.

The purpose of the 1802 has nothing to do with “profitable”, and everything to do with accountability through independent third party verification of the existence of mitigation fixtures. Don’t confuse the two.

The line is drawn when you voluntarily pick up that form and decide to charge the customer for your professional evaluation of the structure to determine compliance with building codes and mitigation fixtures. At that point you hold yourself out to be qualified to do so, and that’s a slippery slope.

Robert, Have you conscidered code enforcement or building inspector career ?

1 Like

Not really, I was at one time just for the experience. After speaking with a few building inspectors I was put off…they seem to know little or nothing and are usually failed contractors. Nobody grows up saying “I want to be a building inspector when I grow up”, they usually fall into in because they failed at another career. Not all, but most.

Besides, the private sector pays a whole lot more :slight_smile:

Those “failed contractors” show up in all kinds of places! :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

What I’d like to ask is if builders made any certain modifications to their building practices as a result of FBC 2001? If so, what is better or stronger (only in relation to the 1802).

I’m asking because a customer asked me if his 2001 house has a chance of getting credit if he went to an engineer to prove FBC 2001 compliant aspects.

if they want insurance discount based on question #1, they should ask they’re agent if it would be worth the trouble. I always refer clients to the agent about discount questions.

Ha, so do I. But in this case the agent is actually in on the conversation asking me the same question. I know it is best to play it safe with just the date but if the customer could potentially get the credit by consulting an engineer it may be worth it.

How much is the discount, vs. The cost of the engineer certification?

I would not recommend getting an engineer cert because the customer might be running up a tab on something that would be of no benefit. However, they are both asking me, “what changed? Maybe the house is compliant.”

Response #3 contains all of the information to answer that question, and more.

The real question is, and this is by no means an insult, but if you couldn’t answer all of the questions on the form to verify compliance with building codes or perform the calculations to determine uplift as required by the form…why were you charging a customer to complete it?

One of the main purposes of the 2001 FBC was statewide uniformity based off of already in place model building codes, and the FBC states this right in it.

Here are a couple of papers on the FBC and wind mitigation. I think the main reason for the development of the FBC was to create a “Uniform” building code for the state, where all jurisdictions were on the same page. Also, this is when the WBDR was designed and the FL approval system kicked in, affecting all building envelope products.


Look at it differently for a house built in 1996 that meets the 2001 FBC.

Which is cheaper. A metal roof at two times the price or a shingle roof at half the price?

Shingle = 15 years.
Metal = 40 to 50 years.

$40,000 metal roof for 50 years.
$20,000 shingle roof for 15 years.

Metal roof cost you $800.00 a year.
Shingle roof cost you $1,333.00 a year.

In 50 years the metal roof cost you $40,000.00.
In 50 years the shingle roof cost you $66,650.00, assuming prices do not change for the additional roofs.

You save $26,650.00 by installing a metal roof at twice the price of shingles initially.

People and HI’s do not think like this. Architects, Engineers and Contractors do.

People and HI’s = Stupid People.
Architects Engineers and Contractors = Smart People.

Engineers report for Wind Mit for $1,000.00.
HI’s report for Wind Mit for $75.00

Engineer saves you $9,000.00 after his cost of $1,000.00 in 5 years, how long wind mits are good for.
HI’s report cost you $75.00 and an additional $2,000.00 a year on insurance.

Engineer report puts $9,000.00 in your pocket in 5 years on credits.
HI’s wind mit costs you $10,075.00 in 5 years no credits plus cost of inspection.

That is a $19,075.00 savings on paper and a $9,000.00 actual savings using standard accounting practices.

Why would anyone want to hire a HI for $75.00 to provide a wind mitigation when hiring an Engineer at $1,000.00 is so much cheaper?

120 times cheaper after 5 years.

Thanks, that’s what I was looking for.

Mitigation and Building Code Comments.

A couple of months ago I called OIR with a question about the mitigation form. Eventually I talked with their senior lawyer. His response was, “we do not have the expertise to answer any questions about the form.” Great, the people who put out a form issue no instructions on how to fill out the form and have no expertise to answer questions about the form.

To me this is the biggest problem with the form. All the questions about the form should be addressed to OIR. And if they respond as above, this should be included with the mitigation paperwork you fill out.

There have been many good questions asked and answers posted about mitigation. The posted answers can only be considered as interpretations by the people that have answered, since there is no formal guidance on this mitigation form. Even at the training we are required to attend it is only the Instructor’s and the School’s interpretation of how to complete this form since there is no instruction and guidance from the OIR.

The only one that can give a correct answer about questions pertaining to the mitigation form is OIR and they will not provide any answers to questions.

Form OIR-B1-1802
Question 1 regarding Building Code compliance. See Note above number 1.
You can provide documentation about the compliance or existence of each construction or mitigation attribute must accompany the form.

For number 1 above. You can provide a copy of the Building Official’s Final Inspection. The final inspection shows that the home was built in compliance with the appropriate FBC for newer homes.

The only people that can provide Building Code compliance inspections is the Building Official and Building Code Inspectors. This is clearly stated in FS 468.603 and 468.604.

Plus an additional requirement of being certified/qualified in the proper category and you must be an employee of a local government or a state agency to perform building code inspections or an employee of a private provider.

Engineers and Architects can perform building code inspection services.

I have not found anything in Florida Statutes stating a Home Inspector can perform building code compliance inspections. If this is allowed please provide FS reference.

Richard Haynes