• 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

16' Garage Door Headers

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Ok, dumb question. but as a BO that processes building permits, how would I know if an Architect is qualified to do the structural or not? If the Architect stamped the plans, and there were structural elements, couldn't I assume that the architect is responsible for the structural elements? Should I need to check more than if the correct code year and design criteria (snow loads for my area for instance) are followed?
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Uncle Bob said:
Brudgers,"So if you're not qualified to review engineers plans, then you accept an architect's seal as well.

Since you are not qualified to practice architecture either."

You either didn't read my statement correctly; or your just being disputatious.

I stated that;

"I'm afraid that as an Inspector; I'm not qualified; nor should I be expected to be qualified to judge Engineered Designs (signed and sealed) that exceed the codes."

I used the codes to conduct plan review of plans that are submitted by an Architects; the same as I would any other person who isn't qualified to submit Engineered plans.

Where the plans are submitted within the limits of R301; whether they are designed by an Engineer, Architect or anyone else; I used the codes to conduct the plan review.

I have had many plans submitted by Architects; and where they were not qualified to specify structural components that were outside (exceeded) the codes; they deferred to qualified Engineers; instead of assuming that they could submit their own calculations and drawings. I suppose there are Architects who believe that their unqualified opinion should be accepted; but, like I stated; I haven't had to deal with those.

Uncle Bob
If you don't check a beam how can you determine if it even meets R301.1.3?

Let alone exceeds it?

Other than by braille, I mean.
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Uncle Bob said:
Brudgers,"So if you're not qualified to review engineers plans, then you accept an architect's seal as well.

Since you are not qualified to practice architecture either."

You either didn't read my statement correctly; or your just being disputatious.

I stated that;

"I'm afraid that as an Inspector; I'm not qualified; nor should I be expected to be qualified to judge Engineered Designs (signed and sealed) that exceed the codes."

I used the codes to conduct plan review of plans that are submitted by an Architects; the same as I would any other person who isn't qualified to submit Engineered plans.

Where the plans are submitted within the limits of R301; whether they are designed by an Engineer, Architect or anyone else; I used the codes to conduct the plan review.

I have had many plans submitted by Architects; and where they were not qualified to specify structural components that were outside (exceeded) the codes; they deferred to qualified Engineers; instead of assuming that they could submit their own calculations and drawings. I suppose there are Architects who believe that their unqualified opinion should be accepted; but, like I stated; I haven't had to deal with those.

Uncle Bob
This is how it is done... IF the plans and calcs appears to be below the prescriptive requirements of codes then the plans then you have the calcs reviewed by the Engineering department to see if they are adequate or calcs reviewed outsourced to an S.E.

Now, this is a matter of contention and variability between states. Where an Architect may overlap Engineering (and vice versa). In Oregon, if the work is on an exempt building - it doesn't matter. I addressed this matter to both the Architect board and the Engineer's Board of the State of Oregon. Of course, when matters are outside the my scope of competence then I would hire an Engineer. Since that would be the only area I would need an RDP.

Professional Standard of Care would require that the Architect or Engineer (and Unlicensed "Building Designers") will not practice outside their area of competence by education/experience.

There are means to request some sort of education / experience documentation to prove you are experienced in these areas outside that normally taught in your professional education.
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Brudgers,

"If you don't check a beam how can you determine if it even meets R301.1.3?"

I didn't have StruCal where I worked; and like most inspectors who also must conduct plan reviews; am not qualified to do Engineering calculations.

If the beam is dimensional lumber and not within the codes, or manufactured and I cannot obtain the manufacturer's tables; I asked my Building Official for his guidance.

If the beam is a manufactured beam; I check the manufacturer's tables.

I have not had an occasion where an Engineered beam was submitted that wasn't produced by a manufacturer that provided tables that I could use to confirm it was correct.

"Other than by braille, I mean."

I won't comment on the repeated insult.

Uncle Bob
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Uncle Bob said:
Brudgers,"If you don't check a beam how can you determine if it even meets R301.1.3?"

I didn't have StruCal where I worked; and like most inspectors who also must conduct plan reviews; am not qualified to do Engineering calculations.

If the beam is dimensional lumber and not within the codes, or manufactured and I cannot obtain the manufacturer's tables; I asked my Building Official for his guidance.

If the beam is a manufactured beam; I check the manufacturer's tables.

I have not had an occasion where an Engineered beam was submitted that wasn't produced by a manufacturer that provided tables that I could use to confirm it was correct.

"Other than by braille, I mean."

I won't comment on the repeated insult.

Uncle Bob
What about beams and structural members that are not engineered at the manufacturer site ? Or for example a truss or box header beam (steel or wood). Box truss for example or other systems. How would you or the B.O. be qualified to run the calcs? Or take a lamella roof for example. If the person designing it is capable of designing and engineering the calcs, how would YOU be able to determine the calcs whether you are a Plan Reviewer or B.O.

Only ones that is capable of determining adequately the calcs would be an RDP and only one that can realistically question an Architect is a Structural Engineer (or adequately trained Engineer in structural systems whether he is licensed as a S.E. or a C.E. (Civil Engineer). M.E.s and E.E.s will likely not be adequately trained to this extent where a C.E. is closer but an S.E. (or an Architectural Engineer) would be.

Would you outsource the review of calcs to someone qualified? Then they report their finding to you.
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Well it sure is re-assuring to see that todays building officials are no longer capable of determing if a 16' garage door header will provide adequate support. We have passed enough code requirements to regulate ourselves right out of a job.
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Uncle Bob said:
I didn't have StruCal where I worked; and like most inspectors who also must conduct plan reviews; am not qualified to do Engineering calculations.

If the beam is dimensional lumber and not within the codes, or manufactured and I cannot obtain the manufacturer's tables; I asked my Building Official for his guidance.
Building Official is an engineer?
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

incognito said:
Well it sure is re-assuring to see that todays building officials are no longer capable of determing if a 16' garage door header will provide adequate support. We have passed enough code requirements to regulate ourselves right out of a job.
Just about anything can span 16-ft. The biggest thing is determining the size of beam to make sure it doesn't deflect too much. Deflection can be critical so that the header beam does NOT jam up the door.

The point is, who is a person that is NOT licensed or qualified to prepare the calcs in the first place qualified to question the decision of a registered design professional and say it is wrong. Do you even know how to even perform the math?

The work around to that is have the calcs checked over by someone who would be equally qualified as the RDP to check the calcs if there is a question. If I was a B.O., I could not lawfully question the calcs of an RDP regarding work on a non-exempt building without literally engaging in the activity and risk of claiming oneself to be duly licensed and registered. In other words, to claim that you know better then a licensed architect or engineer (regarding anything that is not part of the prescriptive path of the codes) is to claim yourself to be duly qualified and therefore licensed and registered. Since you don't want to do that, you can hire/contract or use in-house Engineers (the Engineering Department) to evaluate the calcs and give a professional report of findings and from that findings can make a decision.

You are not out of the job, you just have the calcs that you are not qualified to be able to competently perform because you are not qualified to prepare the plans in the first place - to be evaluated by a qualified professional (expert witness) and give a report. After findings are made, then you can make a decision. This is what a prudent B.O. or Plan Reviewer should do.

Of course, some are duly qualified because of being licensed. If it were me, I would take the due diligence.

Because the OP's original post pertains to a structure that would be exempt in Oregon - I would give a simple suggestion on beam sizing.

I would suggest that the beam size would be a solid timber beam of 12" x 14" (or equivalent Built-Up Beam or Glu-Lam or similarly dimensioned steel beam). I would size the front wall studs to be 2x8 (instead of conventional 2x4 or 2x6. The corners would be a 12x12 built-up is equal size solid timber, laminated column, steel column I-Beam (W12), Steel Tube column (12 x 12 square) with conc./grout fill with reinforcement bars, or reinforced concrete columns.

Connection details, connection systems, anchorage systems and shear wall paneling would have to be spec'd by you to your local codes and load systems. I can not spec any more without detail knowledge. Also, reducing the size any further would need more info. With as little information as it stands, I'm specing a little on the over-built side.

However, a hefty 12x14 beam would be pretty good even on simple beam calculators. It would of course be Douglas Fir - Select Structural grade. If conditions are unusually extreme, I would be going to about 12x18 (built-up made of 2x12s in stack style similar to glu-lam). This would be a reasonably stout header. However, there are a number of detail nuances that exceeds the scope of the general suggestion of sizing but you as the designer will have to decide what is needed and weigh it with the economics and other factors. These specs, I am pushing 900 to 1000 lbs. / ft. of unsupported beam span.

That would be quite a bit on the extreme side.
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

brudgers said:
Uncle Bob said:
I didn't have StruCal where I worked; and like most inspectors who also must conduct plan reviews; am not qualified to do Engineering calculations.

If the beam is dimensional lumber and not within the codes, or manufactured and I cannot obtain the manufacturer's tables; I asked my Building Official for his guidance.
Building Official is an engineer?

Some of them may happen to be an engineer.

Not all of them and not normally required for the job position.
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Of course, garage door headers in the gable end don't support any roof or snow load, just the dead load of the wall above, and the minimum size may be acceptable (i'd have to run the calcs.).
If a Gable Truss is not designed in triangles such as a Web Truss then they are more related to stud walls and do support roof loads which are transfered along the length of the truss to the garage header below. These loads may be minimal tributary loads but they do need to be accounted for

Next time you look at a truss package check the bearing points on the gable end truss. I bet it runs the entire length of the bottom cord.
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

I think the answer is in the 1995 CABO and needs to be put into the IRC. Someone check CABO section 602.6 and table 602.6. I believe it is a double 2x12 for a 16 foot opening. As has been pointed out in other posts, there may be other factors but the double 2x12 works prescriptively if every other portion of the code is being complied with. Most garage door openings around here would require a DP to sign off on them though because they do not meet the prescriptive path listed in IRC 2006.
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

rick a wrote:

The point is, who is a person that is NOT licensed or qualified to prepare the calcs in the first place qualified to question the decision of a registered design professional and say it is wrong. Do you even know how to even perform the math?The work around to that is have the calcs checked over by someone who would be equally qualified as the RDP to check the calcs if there is a question. If I was a B.O., I could not lawfully question the calcs of an RDP regarding work on a non-exempt building without literally engaging in the activity and risk of claiming oneself to be duly licensed and registered. In other words, to claim that you know better then a licensed architect or engineer (regarding anything that is not part of the prescriptive path of the codes) is to claim yourself to be duly qualified and therefore licensed and registered. Since you don't want to do that, you can hire/contract or use in-house Engineers (the Engineering Department) to evaluate the calcs and give a professional report of findings and from that findings can make a decision.

You are not out of the job, you just have the calcs that you are not qualified to be able to competently perform because you are not qualified to prepare the plans in the first place - to be evaluated by a qualified professional (expert witness) and give a report. After findings are made, then you can make a decision. This is what a prudent B.O. or Plan Reviewer should do.
Surely, you make this rhetoric up while visiting with the caterpillar that Alice saw in wonderland.

A plans examiner reviews the entire plans, calculations, packet submittal. Any incorrect information on the plans or found within the calculations need to be sent to the DP and owner for corrections.

:) :) ;)
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

A Plans Examiner reviews the calculations? You don't mean "runs the calculations to determine if they are mathmatically correct" do you?

I hope you mean "reviews the design loading" to verify that the design loading used in the calculations meets the conditions required?
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Heaven wrote:

A Plans Examiner reviews the calculations? You don't mean "runs the calculations to determine if they are mathmatically correct" do you? I hope you mean "reviews the design loading" to verify that the design loading used in the calculations meets the conditions required?
Just because a submittal is stamped by a DP doesn't mean that you perform your review any different. Some designs are required by code and or State law to be prepare by a DP, they don't always get the submittal correct. It's our job has a plans examiner to conduct a plan review, or do you collect review fees and just look for a stamp? ;)
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

kilitact said:
Heaven wrote:
A Plans Examiner reviews the calculations? You don't mean "runs the calculations to determine if they are mathmatically correct" do you? I hope you mean "reviews the design loading" to verify that the design loading used in the calculations meets the conditions required?
Just because a submittal is stamped by a DP doesn't mean that you perform your review any different. Some designs are required by code and or State law to be prepare by a DP, they don't always get the submittal correct. It's our job has a plans examiner to conduct a plan review, or do you collect review fees and just look for a stamp? ;)

If the drawings submitted by a DP are stamped I check only that the design criteria are correct for my area i.e. the code year, the design loading etc etc..

No, I don't review every element/calculation of the DP work and I don't think it is required of me to do so in a "plan review". Does a DP sometimes make calculation mistakes? You bet. Not my job to verify the math (obviously, if I see a number that appears to be "way off", like maybe their calculator was low on batteries, I will point it out for them to review).

I don't perform my job any different stamp or not, if there is no stamp the review is done per prescriptive (which really does not require much calculation at all, mainly matching the table values to the proposed design). And I have a degree in AA, but again, I don't agree that running the calculations are required within the scope of my review.

If you'd like to do them in your office, then all the more power to you.
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Heaven wrote:

If the drawings submitted by a DP are stamped I check only that the design criteria are correct for my area i.e. the code year, the design loading etc etc.. No, I don't review every element/calculation of the DP work and I don't think it is required of me to do so in a "plan review". Does a DP sometimes make calculation mistakes? You bet. Not my job to verify the math (obviously, if I see a number that appears to be "way off", like maybe their calculator was low on batteries, I will point it out for them to review).

I don't perform my job any different stamp or not, if there is no stamp the review is done per prescriptive (which really does not require much calculation at all, mainly matching the table values to the proposed design). And I have a degree in AA, but again, I don't agree that running the calculations are required within the scope of my review.

If you'd like to do them in your office, then all the more power to you.
Congratulations on you’re attainment of an AA degree.

I have always considered it my responsibility has a plans examiner to review each submittal in its entirety. A review of the calculations as you’ve stated that you perform, could miss a calculations for a connection, which would lead to an inadequate connector that’s rated at 4000 LBS instead of 5000 LBS, because of one simple misstep that would have been caught if you’ve performed your duty. IMO; it appears that you look to see if 1+1=2, than stamp them approved. From other treads, I’ve gathered that other code officials are aligned with you, in that if they see a RDP stamp, the submittal only warrants a “drive by”.

The example that I show above is just one of the many items that could show up while performing a through review. Do you check connectors to ensure that they are rated for the loading called out in the design, that the connections are even approved to be used in the locations called out? The list goes on and on and on. How do you justify not performing a complete review, by stating that you saw the stamp? :)
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Sorry for the typo, it is a AE degree.

As I have said, I don't believe it is my duty to perform the calculations in plan review. You are welcome to your opinion and may choose to do whatever you'd like in your jurisdiction.

Just as a curiosity, if you are reviewing say a residential 3800sf house that is submitted by a stamped DP, and there are, say, 22 different trusses, and an equal or greater number of engineered beams and columns (both wood and steel), you perform the structural analysis (determine the loads, including the moment(s), bending, slenderness ratio etc etc) for all of those elements to check the DP's calculations?

If so, I am truly impressed that your jurisdiction has the budget to fund your position.
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

kilitact said:
Heaven wrote:
A Plans Examiner reviews the calculations? You don't mean "runs the calculations to determine if they are mathmatically correct" do you? I hope you mean "reviews the design loading" to verify that the design loading used in the calculations meets the conditions required?
Just because a submittal is stamped by a DP doesn't mean that you perform your review any different. Some designs are required by code and or State law to be prepare by a DP, they don't always get the submittal correct. It's our job has a plans examiner to conduct a plan review, or do you collect review fees and just look for a stamp? ;)

Do you even know how to do the math? What is the highest math class that you taken?

That would be a critical factor. Do you know or understand enough in structural engineering science to understand how the loads are transferred. Do you know how to calculate a Cable-supported roof system and understand the math and science and principles of Physics to perform competently the math. You need to know the science behind it to the degree of level in which you can design with such a system before you can claim to be able to competently understand the math. There is a number of highly scientific and technical matters that you may not know but the designer (whether licensed or not) may know and understand.

If you don't know it, have someone you do know that knows how to perform the math review the calcs and give you a finding. You can supervise / observe it if you like but you need to know more then the code training courses that you might have obtained at your local community college.
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

kilitact said:
Heaven wrote:
A Plans Examiner reviews the calculations? You don't mean "runs the calculations to determine if they are mathmatically correct" do you? I hope you mean "reviews the design loading" to verify that the design loading used in the calculations meets the conditions required?
Just because a submittal is stamped by a DP doesn't mean that you perform your review any different. Some designs are required by code and or State law to be prepare by a DP, they don't always get the submittal correct. It's our job has a plans examiner to conduct a plan review, or do you collect review fees and just look for a stamp? ;)

Sure you can review the plans and if something flags further attention and the math is beyond your training, you should have someone who is trained to run the calcs and explain it to you and their finding. If the calcs are simple enough for you, ok. If not, they are beyond your league then you need to adapt the review process and bring in someone to review the calcs of those portions to assist you but you may supervise/observe the process if you like but you can screw up the math worse then the RDP (or unlicensed designer).
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

kilitact said:
Heaven wrote:
If the drawings submitted by a DP are stamped I check only that the design criteria are correct for my area i.e. the code year, the design loading etc etc.. No, I don't review every element/calculation of the DP work and I don't think it is required of me to do so in a "plan review". Does a DP sometimes make calculation mistakes? You bet. Not my job to verify the math (obviously, if I see a number that appears to be "way off", like maybe their calculator was low on batteries, I will point it out for them to review).

I don't perform my job any different stamp or not, if there is no stamp the review is done per prescriptive (which really does not require much calculation at all, mainly matching the table values to the proposed design). And I have a degree in AA, but again, I don't agree that running the calculations are required within the scope of my review.

If you'd like to do them in your office, then all the more power to you.
Congratulations on you’re attainment of an AA degree.

I have always considered it my responsibility has a plans examiner to review each submittal in its entirety. A review of the calculations as you’ve stated that you perform, could miss a calculations for a connection, which would lead to an inadequate connector that’s rated at 4000 LBS instead of 5000 LBS, because of one simple misstep that would have been caught if you’ve performed your duty. IMO; it appears that you look to see if 1+1=2, than stamp them approved. From other treads, I’ve gathered that other code officials are aligned with you, in that if they see a RDP stamp, the submittal only warrants a “drive by”.

The example that I show above is just one of the many items that could show up while performing a through review. Do you check connectors to ensure that they are rated for the loading called out in the design, that the connections are even approved to be used in the locations called out? The list goes on and on and on. How do you justify not performing a complete review, by stating that you saw the stamp? :)

I expect you to review thoroughly but I would not run the calcs if I don't know how to perform the calcs. If I was you.

I would do the prudent thing and have the calcs ran through by a qualified person and observe it and have them report and explain to me their finding then I can rule one way or the other. If the math is within area of competence then yes, by all means I would perform the calcs but I would need to actually understand engineering science at least to a basic level. I would have to understand the math process used. If I don't, I would screw up very quickly. I could check if the math numbers are processed correctly.

Of course, I have additional knowledge in the engineering sciences as it relates to buildings BUT I would be very cautious about running the calcs on something you don't understand competently.

What would be the prudent thing to do?

I would expect you to be thorough and get assistance when you need it. I would want you to review everything including the calcs but with professional assistance when you need it. I would want the calcs checked and verified but I would not recommend you do this alone on complex calcs. Have an engineer help you with the calcs on those portions of highly complex level.
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Heaven wrote:

If so, I am truly impressed that your jurisdiction has the budget to fund your position
And here I thought thats why we collect fire, life safety and structural plan review fees.

What does your jurisdiction cite has justification for collecting these fees??
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

kilitact said:
Heaven wrote:
If so, I am truly impressed that your jurisdiction has the budget to fund your position
And here I thought thats why we collect fire, life safety and structural plan review fees.

What does your jurisdiction cite has justification for collecting these fees??

I respect your due diligence. The question is the degree you take on yourself.
 
Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

kilitact said:
Heaven wrote:
If so, I am truly impressed that your jurisdiction has the budget to fund your position
And here I thought thats why we collect fire, life safety and structural plan review fees.

What does your jurisdiction cite has justification for collecting these fees??

We don't collect those fees for the department, we collect the standard building permit fee. When a third party review is warranted, we charge the cost to the applicant for a third party review (of our choice).

Now, you may suggest that EVERY project be reviewed by a third party for every aspect of the project. I don't agree. The licensed design professional that submits under his/her stamp is in many cases enough.

And guess what, we don't inspect all the work, either! We inspect a representative portion of the work. Does your department do 100% inspections also?

That's the way it is.
 
Top