• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Some folks don't know when it's time to retire

Yankee Chronicler

Yankee Chronicler

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 17, 2023
Messages
3,473
Location
New England
I recently reviewed construction documents for a pre-engineered metal building that's an addition to an existing pre-engineered metal building. The structural documentation for the footings and foundations consist of a single sheet, with NO dimensions for the piers under the main frame bases and wind columns for the end wall. Sections show some vertical lines that I guess are supposed to be rebars, but no dimensions, not even calling out a minimum cover dimension. The statement of special inspections didn't match up with the requirements in Chapter 17 of the IBC 2021).

Last week the boss and I sat down with the applicant and the structural engineer to go over the many issues we have with the foundation structural documents. The engineer (who is 92 years old) insisted that he didn't need to put any dimensions on the piers because they're the same size as the PEMB base plates. My boss backed me up and said he can't figure out what's going on, so our inspection staff won't know what to look at/for when they inspect. We also pointed out several lines on the drawing that didn't seem to make any sense, and the engineer admitted they were a mistake. He agreed to remove them.

In discussing the statement of special inspections, the engineer insisted that it's ILLEGAL for us to ask for one, because it's not required by the code.

Today we received a new foundation plan. Except ... we didn't. What we received was additional prints of the same drawing we had received previously. The boss called the applicant, who told the boss that the engineer flat-out refused to revise his drawing. He said he designed it, he put his seal and signature on it, so as far as he's concerned the building department has to accept it, and we are not allowed to question anything about it.

Just ... wow.

I believe the applicant is now shopping for a different engineer.
 
tmurray said:
Blindly accepting structural drawings just because they have a stamp on them is very hazardous.

I think we've all had the "how dare you question me, I'm an engineer" talk at one point or another.
Click to expand...

It took me a while to realize that engineers make mistakes and that in a lot of cases, they don't know what they're doing.

Some of the issues I've encountered include:

referencing the wrong code section (part 9 for a part 3 building)
incorrectly referenced fire separations (ICC assemblies instead of ULC/Appendix D)
referencing incorrect climactic/seismic data for a post-disaster building
failure to calculate spatial separation
 
Inspector Gadget said:
It took me a while to realize that engineers make mistakes and that in a lot of cases, they don't know what they're doing.

Some of the issues I've encountered include:

referencing the wrong code section (part 9 for a part 3 building)
incorrectly referenced fire separations (ICC assemblies instead of ULC/Appendix D)
referencing incorrect climactic/seismic data for a post-disaster building
failure to calculate spatial separation
Click to expand...
How's your French? Story broke yesterday, but English news hasn't picked it up yet.

ici.radio-canada.ca

Une ingénieure de Moncton visée par des allégations graves

Une ingénieure de Moncton qui aurait conçu des plans déficient fait face à poursuites et a été suspendue par son association professionnelle
ici.radio-canada.ca ici.radio-canada.ca
 
In my first year as a building official I had many projects certified by a local engineer, and much of what I was seeing was sketchy. He got reported to his licensing body and eventually was heavily sanctioned so that he could no longer practice structural engineering. This left many projects and owners in the lurch with large repair bills and unfinished buildings. it was a very good lesson for a beginning inspector, to never blindly accept anything just because it has been stamped.
 
I’ve told the story before, but on a project in Lake Tahoe I once had an engineer with anger management issues pull the “how dare you question me” on a framing contractor who notice the window headers were smaller that anything else he’d seen in that area. The contractor had the good sense to call me as architect of record. Peer review showed the engineer had checked only for bending moment, but in snow country shear was the governing value. He was fired from his firm.
I saw him 10 years later. He apologized and told me that incident occurred when his wife was divorcing him and he just wasn’t prepared to handle more criticism.

We are all too human, and will make mistakes. Except for manufactured housing, every building is a prototype and needs attention, as it is more likely to have errors than other products like cars that go through a rigorous development and testing process. Just goes to show that being professional also includes knowing when you are not in the right mental framework to execute the responsibilities of the job.
 
Last edited:
It turns out these registered professionals are human, with good and bad days. Some are more or less competent and/or moral.

Or Canadian code had a section called "Division C, Administrative Provisions" which outlines the requirements and responsibilities of designers and registered professionals. I quote this section of the code quite often.
 
Joe.B said:
But what about this??? Doesn't this prove it??? <extreme sarcasm>
Click to expand...

That's a classic example of using legalese/gobbledegook and weasel words to skirt liability. Despite that disclaimer, the fact is that the IBC uses ASCE-7 as the reference standard for structural design. For the ASCE to get their book incorporated into the code as THE standard for structural design and then to turn around and say "Only kidding" is blatant hypocrisy.
 
ICE said:
That is SOP in a lot of jurisdictions.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree that it has been -- and is -- SOP in some jurisdictions to see a seal and signature of a design professional and not look any further. Apparently, before I came on board, my boss's predecessor and his predecessor followed tat line of thought, and years later we are still dealing with the fallout.

However, this is the first time I have ever heard anyone claim that because he put his seal and signature on a drawing I'm not allowed to question it. I think the provisions of chapter 1 of the IBC require that we question everything:

[A] 104.2 Applications and permits. The building official
shall receive applications, review construction documents and
issue permits for the erection, and alteration, demolition and
moving of buildings and structures, inspect the premises for
which such permits have been issued and enforce compliance
with the provisions of this code.


[A] 105.3.1 Action on application. The building official shall
examine or cause to be examined applications for permits and
amendments thereto within a reasonable time after filing. If the
application or the construction documents do not conform to
the requirements of pertinent laws, the building official shall
reject such application in writing, stating the reasons therefor.
If the building official is satisfied that the proposed work
conforms to the requirements of this code and laws and ordinances
applicable thereto, the building official shall issue a
permit therefor as soon as practicable.
Click to expand...

And then there's this:

[A] 107.2.1 Information on construction documents.
Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn on
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.
Click to expand...

Looking at all that, I'm not seeing anything to suggest that the building department is "not allowed" to question a drawing if it carries an engineer's seal and signature. In fact, the code says that the building official "shall" examine (or cause to be examined) the construction documents. The code also requires the construction documents to be "of sufficient clarity" to show that the work will conform to the code. I had two other people in the office look over the drawing in question. I'm an architect. The boss is a licensed electrician with many years of experience as an electrical contractor, so he's no stranger to construction sites. The full-time field inspector/ABO is a former contractor who ran his own construction company. If we all agree that there's nothing on this drawing to tell a contractor how big to make the piers, I don't care if the intent of the structural design satisfies the code and ASCE-7. It can't be built based on the drawing as presented.

When we had a sit-down ten days ago and we asked for dimensions of the piers,. the engineer stated that he got them from the PEMB package. I pointed out that the PEMB package doesn't address the foundations, it only provides the reactions and the frame bearing locations. He insisted that this one did. I re-checked it -- it doesn't. As it shouldn't -- they never do.

This guy may have been a competent engineer in the past. I don't know -- although I practiced architecture in this state for [a very long time], I had not encountered his name until this project. It's clear to me that he is now past his prime. In fact, IMHO he's dangerous. The notion that in another town this might have been approved just because it has his seal on it is frightening.
 
tmurray said:
How's your French? Story broke yesterday, but English news hasn't picked it up yet.

ici.radio-canada.ca

Une ingénieure de Moncton visée par des allégations graves

Une ingénieure de Moncton qui aurait conçu des plans déficient fait face à poursuites et a été suspendue par son association professionnelle
ici.radio-canada.ca ici.radio-canada.ca
Click to expand...

Wow! The .gov actually suspended her license, AND proactively reached out to as many of her clients as they could find to give them a heads up to potential problems. I'm impressed.

The licensing boards in my state (architecture and engineering) virtually never take any meaningful action such as suspending a license (or imposing a fine on individuals who practice without a license). When they do act, it's never publicized.

Classic "toothless tiger."
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Wow! The .gov actually suspended her license, AND proactively reached out to as many of her clients as they could find to give them a heads up to potential problems. I'm impressed.

The licensing boards in my state (architecture and engineering) virtually never take any meaningful action such as suspending a license (or imposing a fine on individuals who practice without a license). When they do act, it's never publicized.

Classic "toothless tiger."
Click to expand...
It is nice to see an agency have the bigger picture in mind.

We're very lucky that another engineer noticed failure cracks in the building and reported her before we actually had a structural collapse. He likely saved a lot of lives.
 
tmurray said:
How's your French? Story broke yesterday, but English news hasn't picked it up yet.

ici.radio-canada.ca

Une ingénieure de Moncton visée par des allégations graves

Une ingénieure de Moncton qui aurait conçu des plans déficient fait face à poursuites et a été suspendue par son association professionnelle
ici.radio-canada.ca ici.radio-canada.ca
Click to expand...
...and English just picked it up...

 
My state only adopted the I codes a few years before when I was just starting as a residential inspector and studying for tests for commercial, certifications and I had a commercial investment property that I needed an architect for. I got one out of the yellow pages and met him at the job site. I was studying the IBC waiting for him when a very senior man with a cane showed up. He asked me what I was reading. I said the IBC. He said, "let me see it, I never saw one". Naturally I hired someone else.
I don't think my state requires architects to have take any type of learning like us inspectors do every 3 years.
 
Mr. Inspector said:
I don't think my state requires architects to have take any type of learning like us inspectors do every 3 years.
Click to expand...

Most states don't. (I believe California is an exception.) The American Institute of Architects does, but the continuing education doesn't have to be life safety or health related, and many of the courses/classes they give credit for seem to be LEED / green building related. And, of course, membership in the AIA isn't mandatory for architects.
 
There were several occasions when confronted with this situation, I made a simple statement to those involved:

"The Information that the Contractor NEEDS to Bid and Build the Project, Is what I need to see to REVIEW IT"

IMHO The real Issue with this situation is not as much New Construction, BUT Alterations to existing structures where the Engineer Doesn't provide the Means and Methods to accomplish the end result
For example How to hold up and support the 2nd and 3rd floors of an ext'g masonry wall while you remove the first floor and install a WF beam to replace it?
Completed Operations Liability Insurance doesn't allow Contractors to make those decisions ( Design errors and omissions)

As long as we have Responsibility for Public Safety then we have the Authority to require that information be clearly presented in the construction documents
 
I am hearing a distorted view of the process. engineers and inspectors each have a different role. Neither party is perfect. This includes inspectors.

An engineer should be involved in the plan review process so the engineering issues cn be resolved prior to start of construction. If an inspector believes the plan check engineer did not identify an engineering issue, the inspector should refer it to the building official who along with the building departments engineer can resolve the issue. The inspector's role is not to perform an independent plan review.

It is not the role of the building department to specify means and methods. If necessary, the contractor can issue an RFI or hire an engineer to resolve means and method or shoring issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top