Apples & oranges. The engineer has the skill and authority to apply physics to design a structure, and do so to code, and best construction practices. The inspector has the authority to approve that design. The inspector does not have the authority to alter the design, and the engineer does not have the authority to approve it.
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Sheathing vs Shear Wall
- Thread starter Mar A
- Start date
- Status
I have like to believe I have humility but I fear many building department personnel do not.
Referring to a "puppy engineer" is disrespectful and minimizes what the engineer can bring to the table. Many of the engineers have been around the block more than a few times.
Many if not most of the code provisions have been developed by engineers. Maybe this gives them some insight as to why the provision was adopted and what is important? I had an experience where I participated in a committee that drafted a code provision that was adopted. Years later I was told by a plan checker that the code did not mean what I understood it to mean. Remember I helped to write the provision.
You may have experienced situations where what the engineer required was not consistent with your understanding, but you may also not understand why he did what he did. I have experienced inspectors and plan checkers who did not know what they were talking about and did not read the code so maybe building department personnel should have some humility.
Individuals may have the authority to approve but with that goes the responsibility to consider all the issues when that ability is exercised. If individuals exercise their authority without considering the engineering perspective then maybe they are not doing their job. Every building department should either have an engineer on staff or should have an engineer as a consultant. Is that threatening?
The process of becoming a licensed engineer is more intense than the process of obtaining an ICC certification. An engineer has studied engineering in college, the emphasis is on understanding why and how things work. In addition the engineer needs to have some experience working under a licensed engineer and must learn the codes and standards related to his work before he can take the licensing exam. Further an engineer receives feedback with respect to his projects thus making him aware of likely problems.
Genduct
Registered User
Mark, Puppy Engineer applies to the new people, the EIT's so, I was being more generous than yourself when you seemed to disparage the New Plan Reviewer who had the guts to ask questions and try to educate himself.
As to your point, Plans Reviewers ARE NOT DESIGN PROFESSIONALS. I have no problem with that double line that I don't cross so I won't wind up in a head-on collision. My experience has been the opposite of your premise. I have seen some of my co-workers defer to the -person with the seal !
The most challenging jobs I was asked to do was to review the MAKE SAFE Permits for ID (Inimitably dangerous) Yep it means our people thought it was close to falling down! The problem was that the Design Professional provided a plan WITHOUT the Procedure / the means or methods to accomplish the finished Product reflected in the Plan
Contractors have Completed Operations , Liability Insurance that DOES NOT INCLUDE Design Errors and Omissions. Thererfore, If the contractor takes it upon themselves to try to figure out how to shore up this thing while they are trying to install 2 new 8WF beams and it falls down and hurts or kills one of their workers, Guess Who Doesn't Have Insurance to cover this tragedy?
Because of being a Contractor/ Owner, I know where that double line is. And found myself, on several occasions, insisting that the Design Professional DO Their JOB, So I Could Do Mine. That is why I was there, not to get into a conversation about whose is bigger! Or who is smarter! I have an even better story, but it would take too long to write down. If you would like to hear it Let me know I have no Doubt that I save some worker's Limbs or their Life on 2 occasions. Made the job worthwhile
Best, Mike
I have not said that the building department should defer to the designer on all things.
The building department should limit its review to compliance with the code provisions. When there are engineering aspects to the design either the plan checker should be an engineer, or the plan checker should be working under the supervision of an engineer. If that is not possible the building department is not properly staffed.
If the issue is not addressed in the code, then it is left to engineer and the engineer's client.
Engineers do not specify the means and methods of how to build the project. To do so would make them responsible for many things over which they have no control. When faced with a means and methods problem contractors are able to hire a specialty engineer to help sort things out. The contractor's job is to take responsibility for means and methods.
You raised the question of E&O insurance. I believe in all states, building department personnel are immune from any liability thus they need no insurance. As to contractors I will only say that in my experience there has been no push back when we stated that we were not responsible for means and methods. The result was that contractors safely built the building.
The building department should limit its review to compliance with the code provisions. When there are engineering aspects to the design either the plan checker should be an engineer, or the plan checker should be working under the supervision of an engineer. If that is not possible the building department is not properly staffed.
If the issue is not addressed in the code, then it is left to engineer and the engineer's client.
Engineers do not specify the means and methods of how to build the project. To do so would make them responsible for many things over which they have no control. When faced with a means and methods problem contractors are able to hire a specialty engineer to help sort things out. The contractor's job is to take responsibility for means and methods.
You raised the question of E&O insurance. I believe in all states, building department personnel are immune from any liability thus they need no insurance. As to contractors I will only say that in my experience there has been no push back when we stated that we were not responsible for means and methods. The result was that contractors safely built the building.
Means & methods is the responsibility of the contractor. The AoR / EoR is available to review said methods if the contractor requests.
Genduct
Registered User
I have not said that the building department should defer to the designer on all things.
DON'T WORRY WE WON'T
The building department should limit its review to compliance with the code provisions. NO QUESTION
When there are engineering aspects to the design either the plan checker should be an engineer, or the plan checker should be working under the supervision of an engineer. If that is not possible the building department is not properly staffed. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE PEOPLE WITH THAT STATUS, IT IS NOT THEIR JOB TO CHECK OR SECOND GUESS YOUR WORK. ALTHOUGH I HAVE ASKED FOR INFO TO BE CLARIFIED OR CLARIFIED WHEN I AM SUPRISED OR CONFUSED I KNOW WHERE THE DOUBLE LINE IS
If the issue is not addressed in the code, then it is left to the engineer and the engineer's client.
I CERTAINLY HOPE YOU ARE NOT SETTLING FOR THE CODE MINIMUM AND ARE DOING BEST PRACTICES
Engineers do not specify the means and methods of how to build the project. To do so would make them responsible for many things over which they have no control. When faced with a means and methods problem contractors are able to hire a specialty engineer to help sort things out. The contractor's job is to take responsibility for means and methods.
DOES YOUR CLIENT KNOW THAT YOU WERE HIRED AND PAID TO DO HALF THE JOB? IS THAT STATEMENT ON YOUR PLAN OR IN YOUR SPEC? YOU DO RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEM, RIGHT
You raised the question of E&O insurance. I believe in all states, building department personnel are immune from any liability thus they need no insurance. As to contractors I will only say that in my experience there has been no push back when we stated that we were not responsible for means and methods. The result was that contractors safely built the building. THAT'S BECAUSE MANY OF THE SMALLER GUYS DON'T RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEM AND AS JUST STATED, YOU HAVE NOT MADE THAT CLEAR IN YOUR CONSTRUCTION DOCS
Genduct
Registered User
ps WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTING BUILDING MAKE SAFE SITUATION NOT NEW CONSTRUCTION
The building department is not concerned with means and methods. Their concern is that the completed structure is compliant with the adopted regulations.
The idea that the designer should be responsible for specifying the means and methods. is contrary to the recommendations of the Errors and Omissions Insurance carriers and the lawyers' representing designers. It is also contrary to the understanding of design engineers.
The reality is that contracts for construction are consistent in specifying that
the building department is not concerned about means and methods. They are concerned that the completed structure complies with the building regulations.
If the designers were to become responsible for controlling means and methods, I envision two reactions from Contractors. First, they would not be happy with what the designers specified. Second, they would file a claim for a change order because they would claim what the designers specified cost them more money.
The reality is that construction contracts regularly make the contractor responsible for means and methods of construction. This has been the norm.
The above applies to modifications to exiting construction; as well as, new construction. The Contractor is responsible for construction means and methods. Contractors have shown that they can manage the means and methods.
The idea that the designer should be responsible for specifying the means and methods. is contrary to the recommendations of the Errors and Omissions Insurance carriers and the lawyers' representing designers. It is also contrary to the understanding of design engineers.
The reality is that contracts for construction are consistent in specifying that
the building department is not concerned about means and methods. They are concerned that the completed structure complies with the building regulations.
If the designers were to become responsible for controlling means and methods, I envision two reactions from Contractors. First, they would not be happy with what the designers specified. Second, they would file a claim for a change order because they would claim what the designers specified cost them more money.
The reality is that construction contracts regularly make the contractor responsible for means and methods of construction. This has been the norm.
The above applies to modifications to exiting construction; as well as, new construction. The Contractor is responsible for construction means and methods. Contractors have shown that they can manage the means and methods.
Genduct
Registered User
Mark, please understand that the situation I was referring to WAS NOT New Construction, but even New construction would call out the Benching or soldier Beams and lagging to excavate and support an abutting structure, WOuld it not?
So, I had an engineer submit a plan to remove the existing first floor 8" masonry wall, of the original 3 story rear wall, to open up the space with a later addition, and showed an 8WF replacing the wall WITH THE REMAINING @ FLOORS OF EXT"G BRICK ABOVE
The Contractor was supposed to accomplish that HOW? Are You Kidding Me? Without guidance from the "Design Professional" Would you have left those decisions up to the Contractor? Told the Contractor they had to engage another Design Professional to fill-in the blanks.
Of course, the design would not be complete without a shoring plan and some clear indication of what was going to hold up 2 stories of 8" brick 15' X 20' x 80#/ SF so you can install that 8WF
PS there was No Note about engaging another Engineer to give them clear guidance about The Methods to SAFELY accomplish this
There was no way I was issuing a Permit that would have put that contractor in that situation, SO I asked for a CLARIFICATION without adding any editorial comments. That is the benefit of hiring people like me to do the job as a second career. We bring some practical Experience to the table.
We don't just "Rubber Stamp" it because you sealed the drawing and "Defer" to you and your Insurance Carrier
How can you disagree with that POV?
Let me know if you would like to compare notes, off line. Perhaps we are not as far apart as the posts might suggest
Best, Mike
jar546
Forum Coordinator
Our structural plans examiners look at code compliance only. On more involved projects we send it out to a structural P.E. for peer review.
There were times, however, when simple items such as a built-up beam was not code compliant and further information was asked of the architect or engineer to clarify and prove compliance with calculations since the beam was not prescriptively compliant with the code. 100% of the time when we asked for the calculations for our records, the beam size was changed to a compliant design.
As a person who owned a third-party inspection agency and was sued twice, yeah, E&O insurance is required and as a BCO for a municipality, we have the required insurance too.
ICE
Oh Well
Reading this thread one can get the wrong idea of what goes on in building departments. There is no hard and fast rule so it's a crap shoot as to the rigors applied to plan checks and what happens after. The jurisdiction where I worked has close to a hundred engineers of one stripe or another. Some are top notch and some are...well not so much. That jurisdiction paid close attention to detail and a huge County right next door approved any stamped plan without looking at it.
A construction project is a group of individuals performing an amalgamation of tasks. 1. Someone puts pencil to paper with plan check being the first hurdle. 2. The contractor is the next link in the chain. 3. Lastly, and most important is the inspector. If the first two are deficient, the inspector steps up to the plate and clears the bases....or so we have been told.
The truth is that each of one, two and three might be competent or any combination is just as likely. It is when the inspector is the weak link that the worst outcome is possible.
Ninety percent of the work ninety percent of building departments deal with is residential construction. Residential construction was hardly complicated. And then came a need to feed a bureaucracy bent on regulating every nuance of the residential built environment. Had the train stopped with a National Electric Code, the cost of housing would not be anywhere near the staggering heights of today....awful delays would evaporate...crappy builders would wither.
Apparently Californians have a fetish for licenses. A license is required for a host of occupations from barber to embalmer. Anyone not needing the services of the embalmer can get a contractor license, bad haircut and all. That gives the populace a false sense of well-being.
The same applies to engineers and inspectors. Okay, not just anybody can get an engineering license....you have to start with an architect and remove the sense of humor... we all know an engineer that should be working for Disney because they’re Goofy. As to inspectors, oh my what an assortment that is. The occupation of inspector reminds me of the freeway syatem....since we let anyone in, it's a wonder that it works at all.
The train rolls down the tracks and at each stop a passenger loads up. Some have a ticket to ride and others are imposters blending in. They all have a seat and too many of them are seat warmers.
A construction project is a group of individuals performing an amalgamation of tasks. 1. Someone puts pencil to paper with plan check being the first hurdle. 2. The contractor is the next link in the chain. 3. Lastly, and most important is the inspector. If the first two are deficient, the inspector steps up to the plate and clears the bases....or so we have been told.
The truth is that each of one, two and three might be competent or any combination is just as likely. It is when the inspector is the weak link that the worst outcome is possible.
Ninety percent of the work ninety percent of building departments deal with is residential construction. Residential construction was hardly complicated. And then came a need to feed a bureaucracy bent on regulating every nuance of the residential built environment. Had the train stopped with a National Electric Code, the cost of housing would not be anywhere near the staggering heights of today....awful delays would evaporate...crappy builders would wither.
Apparently Californians have a fetish for licenses. A license is required for a host of occupations from barber to embalmer. Anyone not needing the services of the embalmer can get a contractor license, bad haircut and all. That gives the populace a false sense of well-being.
The same applies to engineers and inspectors. Okay, not just anybody can get an engineering license....you have to start with an architect and remove the sense of humor... we all know an engineer that should be working for Disney because they’re Goofy. As to inspectors, oh my what an assortment that is. The occupation of inspector reminds me of the freeway syatem....since we let anyone in, it's a wonder that it works at all.
The train rolls down the tracks and at each stop a passenger loads up. Some have a ticket to ride and others are imposters blending in. They all have a seat and too many of them are seat warmers.
Last edited:
Keys sticking on the keyboard?
The situation being described is unclear and now apparently has to do with underpinning or indirectly providing support of an adjacent structure. This is both complex from an engineering perspective and from a legal perspective. Obviously engineering involvement is needed, but without more information I prefer not to comment on whether the engineer should have shown more. My following comments are focused on more typical conditions
Creating new openings in an existing masonry wall may be almost trivial or could be a major issue depending on the size of the opening and the configuration of the wall above. If they are contemplating a 15' opening, I would be more concerned with the 8WF and how the completed walls span the opening and possibly the need to modify the foundation.
Temporary shoring is not a building code issue. I contend that it is governed by OSHA. Underpinning is not a temporary situation, but the means and methods by which it is accomplished are not addressed in the code.
By refusing to issue a permit not because of a code requirement, but because you did not want to "...put that contractor in that situation" you have taken it upon yourself to create a special duty to protect the contractor. This act, thus likely voided the immunity you and the building department may claim.
When the building department does not void its immunity, the liability exposure of the building department is minuscule compared with the liability exposure of the design engineer.
Creating new openings in an existing masonry wall may be almost trivial or could be a major issue depending on the size of the opening and the configuration of the wall above. If they are contemplating a 15' opening, I would be more concerned with the 8WF and how the completed walls span the opening and possibly the need to modify the foundation.
Temporary shoring is not a building code issue. I contend that it is governed by OSHA. Underpinning is not a temporary situation, but the means and methods by which it is accomplished are not addressed in the code.
By refusing to issue a permit not because of a code requirement, but because you did not want to "...put that contractor in that situation" you have taken it upon yourself to create a special duty to protect the contractor. This act, thus likely voided the immunity you and the building department may claim.
When the building department does not void its immunity, the liability exposure of the building department is minuscule compared with the liability exposure of the design engineer.
Genduct
Registered User
Mark, I really liked the Ice-man's summation. And I hope there is some value in this exchange of views.
BUT your remark:, "By refusing to issue a permit not because of a code requirement, but because you did not want to "...put that contractor in that situation" you have taken it upon yourself to create a special duty to protect the contractor. This act, thus likely voided the immunity you and the building department may claim."
The guy was taking the ENTIRE 1st floor wall out and I believe it was (2) 8WFs
Remember I "artfully" broached the subject so there would be no doubt about where a "Jury of our Peers" would understand the responsibility for this Engineering Concern rested (IMHO) by asking for a CLARIFICATION. The Engineer was On Notice that there was a question that needed to be addressed.
There was no need to confront the Engineer who clearly subscribed to your Point of View. Just a Nudge in the right direction. I only had 4 of these issues in 4 years, so it didn't happen that often.
And finally, I could not review this situation and NOT respond to what I saw as the potential loss of some worker's Limbs or Life with the idea that I didn't have the "Chops" to see the situation for what it was.
Actually, I think an exchange of views like this does have value. People will have to consider the observation: When Good people standby and say nothing................. Fill in the rest.
You do need to be "Artful" in how you respond. I also believe a Mistake is an Error that can't be corrected. Having someone get hurt or worse because of my lack of a response is not an error and not something Sgt Mike is capable of considering as a Course of Action.
I enjoyed this exchange of views. Best Mike
You did confront the engineer. You used your position and the potential to cause delays in approval to apply pressure.
The building department is not concerned with establishing responsibility of the design engineer. That is the providence of the civil courts and potentially the licensing board. The focus of the building department is on code compliance
ICE
Oh Well
There was a time when that was true.... Code compliance is merely a part of the outward appearance. The focus has shifted to "customer service". It is less obvious during plan check and permitting because the majority of the high paid players on both sides of the counter occupy that space. They need to look productive and necessary in ever increasing numbers.
The customer service comes in with ineffectual, hobbled inspectors. Many inspectors don't have to be told to not write corrections because that creates a negative customer experience....some need reminding. Writing corrections causes a delay and the consensus is that most corrections are not worth the strife that comes with it.
jar546
Forum Coordinator
104.12 Requirements not covered by code. Any requirements necessary for strength, stability or proper operation of an existing or proposed building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, or for the public safety, health and general welfare, not specifically covered by this or other technical codes, shall be determined by the building official.
Mark, you see, there is a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of the BO which is why means, methods, and safety are important factors. Replacing a roof on a high-rise? We want a plan from an engineer showing the distribution of the loads when materials are sent up by crane. If a job requires underpinning, you bet that the engineer will have to provide details for the job. Temporary shoring of structures is also something in the purview of the engineer, and we will absolutely be asking for that. If you are designing for a job that requires underpinning and temporary shoring and you think that is not your responsibility, I assume you sub-contract that out or refer your client to an engineer that does.
Then there is this:
107.2.1 Information on construction documents. Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn upon suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted where approved by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the building official. Such drawings and specifications shall contain information, in the form of notes or otherwise, as to the quality of materials, where quality is essential to conformity with the technical codes. Such information shall be specific, and the technical codes shall not be cited as a whole or in part, nor shall the term "legal" or its equivalent be used as a substitute for specific information. All information, drawings, specifications and accompanying data shall bear the name and signature of the person responsible for the design.
The key sentence is "......conform to the provisions of this code AND relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations,....."
So when I ask you to show me the Coastal Construction Control Line on the plans, reference the DEP number for approval and require a temporary shoring plan for the neighbor's block wall you will be undermining, it becomes part of the requirements.
Maybe in your perfect world, you are free to limit your design so as to limit your liability, in the real world that you live in, that is not the case
Genduct
Registered User
Mark, we clearly disagree on our Role, Our Responsibility
I believe that since English Common Law was invented, Our Job Is PUBLIC SAFETY, And hence why we have Police Powers. If you chose to ignore what appears to be a Flawed Design because there is an Engineer of Record, and are afraid to bring that situation to their attention, how do you live with yourself if the Contractor is hurt or worse trying to execute using their "Means and Methods"
I don't know about your area but locally the majority of our Contractors are "Handymen" and not experienced Contractors. Even more pressure to do that Safety Thing
This is the end of the discussion for me. You can get the last word in, I think we have covered this topic pretty well
I also think the discussion may help others think about what their Responsibilities are before they have to decide what to do when they see a problem
Best, Mike B
The premise of your argument is tremendously flawed... If a plan checker should limit his/her review to code compliance, then why do they need to be or have an engineer on staff? Per your argument, the engineering need not be reviewed except for code compliance. If review is limited to code, then why have an engineer on staff.
You need to keep in mind that as a Plans Examiner, I know more about Code then you as an engineer do. With that, I also respect that you as an engineer, know more about engineering design then I do. Two way street. For that reason, perhaps building departments should not have engineers on staff. That would keep the lines from being blurred then, right? Let building departments stick to code and engineers to the engineering.
Or let me guess, that isn't good enough for you either Mark?
Inspector Gadget
Registered User
Not arguing but ... I would be less concerned about a high rise roof, and more concerned about a building with a stone ballasted roof (takes too much time to remove the stone, and where are you going to stockpile it anyway). Or even a residential single family project where they stack all the new shingles on the ridge.
steveray
SAWHORSE
The truss manufacturers specs are often violated on this and drywall stacking...
jar546
Forum Coordinator
It is all relevant, however the stakes are much higher with threshold buildings.
The reason the building department needs engineers is because their expertise and knowledge is needed to interpret the code. You cannot neatly separate the design from the code if for no other reason than a major goal of the design is to comply with the code. In California the norm is that the building department either employs an engineer or contracts with an engineer to provide such expertise.
Within the scope of my practice I suggest that I know more about the code that applies to me than an unlicensed individual. There are parts of the code that I do not fully appreciate but those provisions deal with issues outside of my scope of practice.
In response to the provisions of section 104.12 quoted, a building official who does not have the training and expertise expected of an engineer does not have the expertise to make the determinations implied. More importantly giving the building official the authority to effectively unilaterally adopt new code provisions is in strict conflict with our legal system and thus this provision should be considered to be void. Our system of laws which supersedes this provision in the IBC, requires that laws be adopted by an appropriately empowered legislative body which the building official is not. Yes our system has room for the legislature to delegate the adoption of regulations to specific administrative bodies but these administrative bodies, which a building official is not, must follow special procedures when adopting the regulations. The referenced section 104.12 would negate any due process rights we have and thus must be considered illegal.
It should be noted that there is no Section 104.12 in the 2018 IBC. Where did this language come from?
The Section 104.12 presented gives the building official the powers of an authoritarian. Such a provision is in conflict with our legal system. I am of the understanding that we still live in a democracy.
The building official is empowered to interpret the building code but there are limits on such interpretations and they do not allow the building official to impose new regulations. If you do not agree with the decisions made by society then propose that the laws be changed but the language in the quoted section cannot be used to overturn our system of laws and create an authoritarian system.
The reality is that the building code does not remove all risk. Society by adopting building regulations has decided to accept some risks but apparently some individuals propose that the building official can overturn the decision made by the legislative body because their risk tolerance is different. For those who want to eliminate all risks this is not possible. To be consistent such individuals should not get out of bed in the morning but even that strategy has risks.
Champlain Towers collapse was the result of individuals refusing to address the known damage to the structure. I will suggest that the deteriorated structural members were no longer in compliance with the code in effect when it was originally permitted. In such a situation the building official would have had the authority to act without invoking the purported Section 104.12.
- Status