• 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

Residential Plan Review

C

charlie

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
24
Looking for imput regarding residential plan review.

You have a engineered stamped set of drawings,for a SFR is a certified ICC plans examiner qualified to perform the plan review or do you need to send it out and have a seperate engineer do the structural plan review.
 
A plan checker should be "qualified" to do the plan check they do.

Can a non engineer do a structural plan review?

Maybe but not always.

Is the certified ICC plans examiner, qualified to do a structural plan review?
 
Yes the ICC plans examiner is certified and quilified, but he is not a engineer.
 
Look at your state licensing laws. In California an individual performing a plan review where he will exercised engineering judgement must do the work under the supervision of a licensed engineer or architect.
 
California has a Guide to Engineering and Land Surveying for City and County Officials at http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/local_officials_guide.pdf. Concerning Plan check, it says:

"If the level of review done during plan checking is strictly simple code compliance—a

non-discretionary comparison of the engineering documents with the clearly mandated

code requirements and a determination of whether the engineering documents comply

with those clearly mandated code requirements—then the plan checking does not rise

to the level of professional engineering and does not have to be performed by, or under

the responsible charge of, an appropriately licensed engineer.

"HOWEVER, if the level of review done during plan checking involves the exercise of

professional engineering discretion and independent engineering judgments, analyses,

and determinations by the plan checker, then the plan checking would rise to the

level of professional engineering and would have to be performed by, or under the

responsible charge of, an appropriately licensed engineer."
 
Good answer Phil!.....Here, we are not bound to check a structural engineers work, just that they used the proper design parameters and procedures, if we can check it in the IRC....great! If not...they are only bound by their ethics and/or fear of losing their license....Which I do not believe happens here....I have sent a few down to our professional licensing division and gotten absolutely no response....
 
An ICC plans examiner would be certified. This does not make them qualified, any one can take the test.
 
kilitact said:
An ICC plans examiner would be certified. This does not make them qualified, any one can take the test.
Click to expand...
Anyone can take the test. Not that many pass the test.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil said:
California has a Guide to Engineering and Land Surveying for City and County Officials at http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/local_officials_guide.pdf. Concerning Plan check, it says:"If the level of review done during plan checking is strictly simple code compliance—a

non-discretionary comparison of the engineering documents with the clearly mandated

code requirements and a determination of whether the engineering documents comply

with those clearly mandated code requirements—then the plan checking does not rise

to the level of professional engineering and does not have to be performed by, or under

the responsible charge of, an appropriately licensed engineer.

"HOWEVER, if the level of review done during plan checking involves the exercise of

professional engineering discretion and independent engineering judgments, analyses,

and determinations by the plan checker, then the plan checking would rise to the

level of professional engineering and would have to be performed by, or under the

responsible charge of, an appropriately licensed engineer."
Click to expand...
I agree with this assessment and believe it is the same in my State, and also speaks to a number of threads we have had on this board about plan review.
 
ICE said:
Anyone can take the test. Not that many pass the test.
Click to expand...
Do you have any data that shows the number of applicants that pass/fail the IRC plans examiner test??
 
Builder Bob said:
A non-engineer plan reviewer is not qualified to perform structural plan reviews..... However, he/she may ensure that the proper design criteria is stated on the plans. If the design criteria is incorrect, the plans should be rejected.
Click to expand...
I do not agree.

A prescriptive structural design under the IRC can and is reviewed by plan reviewers on a daily basis, legally. We can also review non-prescriptive design from RDP's to ensure that they are correct for the prescriptive code requirements. We also routinely review the cut sheets provided by RDP's for LVLs and GluLams to ensure that they have the correct design data such as location and loads carried above. We can question anything that we want but cannot specify repairs to the RDP. We always ask for a copy of their calculations for "record keeping" purposes just in-case there is future litigation.

We almost always find problems with structural designs for wood construction such as wrong spans, missing point loads, undersized pier/post footers, lack of load transfer, and even undersized prescriptive headers and girders.

I hope that the post I am replying to is not trying to say that a plan reviewer cannot comment on structural issues if the plans are submitted by an RDP.
 
jar546 said:
I do not agree.A prescriptive structural design under the IRC can and is reviewed by plan reviewers on a daily basis, legally. We can also review non-prescriptive design from RDP's to ensure that they are correct for the prescriptive code requirements. We also routinely review the cut sheets provided by RDP's for LVLs and GluLams to ensure that they have the correct design data such as location and loads carried above. We can question anything that we want but cannot specify repairs to the RDP. We always ask for a copy of their calculations for "record keeping" purposes just in-case there is future litigation.

We almost always find problems with structural designs for wood construction such as wrong spans, missing point loads, undersized pier/post footers, lack of load transfer, and even undersized prescriptive headers and girders.

I hope that the post I am replying to is not trying to say that a plan reviewer cannot comment on structural issues if the plans are submitted by an RDP.
Click to expand...
I agree that a plan reviewer may question aspects of design done by a LDP, but to question (for instance) the size of a pier that has been engineered would require the reviewer to review the mathematics behind the sizing, and IMHO that is practicing engineering. I recall once that Peach made the point that if the building office keeps the engineering calculations on file, that assumes that the building office has reviewed those calculations for accuracy. How can those be reviewed without "engineering"?
 
Plan review does not equate to practicing engineering. Questioning an engineered design is not practicing engineering.

As a practical matter, the 'engineering' is knowing what variables to replace with what values. Once that is done the rest is simply multiplication, division, addition and subtraction. I would hope (pray?) that the local Code Official can perform basic mathematical computations. Even the IRC includes requirements for documentation, and references to design methodologies.

If in plan review it is determined that additional information is required, or a miscalculation appears to have led to an incorrect/noncompliant element within the design, it is not practicing engineering to cause the design to be justified/corrected. It is, however, the Code Officials duty and obligation to ask the question or require the correction. JMHO
 
Yankee said:
I agree that a plan reviewer may question aspects of design done by a LDP, but to question (for instance) the size of a pier that has been engineered would require the reviewer to review the mathematics behind the sizing, and IMHO that is practicing engineering. I recall once that Peach made the point that if the building office keeps the engineering calculations on file, that assumes that the building office has reviewed those calculations for accuracy. How can those be reviewed without "engineering"?
Click to expand...
*Note: this is a general statement to all, not personal to any particular person. Let's just clarify that first.

There is a big difference between doing your job by "reviewing" vs being the one that actually specifies how to do a job.

There are too many guys out there that automatically approve a submission because it has a "stamp" from an RDP. That does not mean that it is necessarily right, hence the entire reason for a plan "review". We often question RDPs and as a result they make changes because they realize they made a mistake. Simply turning your head because it came from an RDP is not doing anyone justice and not doing your job. It is our job to question what is put in front of us, otherwise why do we even have a job?

To back that up, I do expert witness against contractors and other inspectors and I am proud of it. Some are like shooting fish in a barrel over simple issues just like this. If you can't figure the tributary load for a pier footing then just maybe you are in the wrong career. One inspector in particular was so lazy and incompetent that after our inspection and review of a problem, he was decertified by the State and no longer works in this field, nor should he.
 
"As a practical matter, the 'engineering' is knowing what variables to replace with what values. Once that is done the rest is simply multiplication, division, addition and subtraction. I would hope (pray?) that the local Code Official can perform basic mathematical computations. Even the IRC includes requirements for documentation, and references to design methodologies. "

If a plan checker thinks that he need only check the arithmetic then he is doing a disservice. In many instances checking the arithmetic is the least important thing.

Just because the IRC
 
Just because the IRC provides for doing calculations does not mean an engineer is not needed. State law and the agency regulating the practice of engineering decides when a professional engineer is required.
 
From the RDP side, I don't mind comments that dig deep (whether on an engineering side or an architectural side) - what I DO mind is a plan checker (whether in the AHJ or a 3rd party plan checking company) that states "I don't care what the code says, it's written poorly and the intent is what I'M saying is correct so you better change it to what I'M saying it should be."
 
I recently reviewed a plans for a SFR and found 2x12 SPF floor joists, 16" oc for a 21' span, dug a little further and found the girder in the basement also undersized. I contacted the RDP and found that the homeowner had added 5' to the width of the building and the plans had been redrawn and never rechecked. He thanked me for finding the error. The contractor was mad because his takeoff was now incorrect and would cost more, the homeowner was mad because it will cost more and want the RDP to pay. I got revised plans and am watching them fight it out.
 
MtnArch said:
From the RDP side, I don't mind comments that dig deep (whether on an engineering side or an architectural side) - what I DO mind is a plan checker (whether in the AHJ or a 3rd party plan checking company) that states "I don't care what the code says, it's written poorly and the intent is what I'M saying is correct so you better change it to what I'M saying it should be."
Click to expand...
I can certainly see how that would definitely be a bothersome situation. That example is just one of many that give reviewers and inspectors a bad name. A good RDP will appreciate when you find legitimate problems on prints.
 
When I was in direct enforcement, if I called out a DP on their design a code section was always quoted along with the detail of concern.

If you're going to write it, cite it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top