16' Garage Door Headers

[RickAstoria]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

I just went through reading the "Stairway to Uninhabited Attic Space" thread. Oh boy....

 

[kilitact]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

RickAstoria wrote;

I just went through reading the "Stairway to Uninhabited Attic Space" thread. Oh boy....

Whats your take on the code complaince requirements for these type of stairs.

 

[brudgers]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

RickAstoria wrote;

I just went through reading the "Stairway to Uninhabited Attic Space" thread. Oh boy....

Whats your take on the code complaince requirements for these type of stairs.

My bet: a design professional is required.

 

[kilitact]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

RJJ wrote:

Fatboy: You are right! But the next 7 or so pages my be riveting!

RJJ, one can only hope,

With moderators that moderate with moderation, such as the ones who moderate this section, the possibilities are fathomless. We just need to jettison our preconceived regiment of thinking and be receptive to considering other possibilities.

 

[TJacobs]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Let's keep it on topic folks.

 

[RickAstoria]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

Got to love TJacobs

 

[RickAstoria]

Re: 16' Garage Door Headers

RickAstoria wrote;

I just went through reading the "Stairway to Uninhabited Attic Space" thread. Oh boy....

Whats your take on the code complaince requirements for these type of stairs.

Response to your question found here:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=874&start=10

back to 16'ft. spanning headers.

-----------------------------------------------------

Headers could jam the door opening - dependent on the type of garage door - if the header sags too much.

 

[jar546]

FYI, this is the most active topic to date. We still need an attic stairs to nowhere thread to beat it!

 

[rktect 1]

I'm pretty tired right now from re-reading this.

I might post something useful later.

 

[GHRoberts]

UB I agree and Under StruCalc what you stated is good by 85% with a .198 deflection 46lbs snow 15 lb dead loads. That's why we use StruCalc to double check submitted design loads that are not prepared by an engineer.

Engineering software can only be used to say a structure meets the code, it cannot be used to say that the structure does not meet the code. Using engineering software to "check" designs is practicing engineering. You can get into all sorts of problems doing what you say.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Engineering software can only be used to say a structure meets the code, it cannot be used to say that the structure does not meet the code.

????????

I can tell you it meets code but I can't tell you it does not meet code

 

[GHRoberts]

????????I can tell you it meets code but I can't tell you it does not meet code

You can tell people they need to submit engineering. You can tell them it does not meet the prescriptive code. You can not tell them it does not meet the code. That statement requires an engineering license. If you had an engineering license, you would realize that your software does not say that the structure fails to meet the code.

 

[texasbo]

That's nonsense, George. A non-licensed building department employee has every authority to say a design doesn't meet code, if they feel there is evidence to support such a position. In the end, they may be wrong, or they may be right. There is nothing that says they are "practicing engineering" to turn a design down if they're acting in good faith.

I have seen non-licensed/registered plans examiners turn down sealed plans on numerous occasions with BLATANT code violations.

 

[Mark K]

The California board regulating the practice of enginering (BPELS) has issued a "Guide to Engineering & Land Surveying for City and County Officials" http://www.pels.ca.gov/pubs/local_officials_guide.pdf

If the plan checking is limited to "...simple code compliance, non-discretionary comparison of the engineering documents with clearly mandated code requirements..." then the plan checker does not need to be a licensed engineer. On the other hand if the "...comments involve the exercise of professional engineering discretion and independent engineering judgements..." then the plan checker must be a licensed engineer or working under the direct supervision of a licensed engineer.

This may require the hiring of professional engineers to perform the engineering reviews.

Non-licensed plan checkers can still reject submittals that do not have required engeering calculations.

What you consider to be a clearly mandated code requirement and what requires engineering judgement may implact what the checker can do. Does this include simple calculations? If so where do you draw the line.

One of the points that the Guideline makes is that in California local building departments may not require the applicant retain a structural engineer as opposed to a civil engineer. A number of jurisdictions are obviously in violation of the law.

It would be interesting to understand the rules in other states. It may be that in some states that there is an exemption for government employees.

 

[texasbo]

More good discussion. I think the wording you've quoted is sufficiently vague to leave it entirely up to interpretation. I can also tell you that in Texas, it is even more vague. To paraphrase Texas law, "you are practicing engineering if you perform creative or service work related to engineering"! And I'm not paraphrasing very much... Since this is all in the residential forum, I'll also tell you that in Texas, most private dwellings are completely exempt by The Engineer's Practice Act from requiring any engineering, regardless of size, span, or construction type .

"Clearly mandated code requirements". If an engineer submits a structural plan that shows that the structural system isn't capable of supporting the code prescribed loads, and my ICC certified, but non-licensed plans examiner turns it down, then in my opinion any rational person would interpret him as being within the scope of "comparison with clearly mandated code requirements", whether he used a pencil, a calculator, or a computer program.

I will concede that the West Coast tends to err on the conservative side for obvious reasons, and usually hire or sub out review to PE's, but that doesn't mean you are practicing engineering if you are reviewing an engineer's plan for code compliance.

The California board regulating the practice of enginering (BPELS) has issued a "Guide to Engineering & Land Surveying for City and County Officials" http://www.pels.ca.gov/pubs/local_officials_guide.pdf If the plan checking is limited to "...simple code compliance, non-discretionary comparison of the engineering documents with clearly mandated code requirements..." then the plan checker does not need to be a licensed engineer. On the other hand if the "...comments involve the exercise of professional engineering discretion and independent engineering judgements..." then the plan checker must be a licensed engineer or working under the direct supervision of a licensed engineer.

This may require the hiring of professional engineers to perform the engineering reviews.

Non-licensed plan checkers can still reject submittals that do not have required engeering calculations.

What you consider to be a clearly mandated code requirement and what requires engineering judgement may implact what the checker can do. Does this include simple calculations? If so where do you draw the line.

One of the points that the Guideline makes is that in California local building departments may not require the applicant retain a structural engineer as opposed to a civil engineer. A number of jurisdictions are obviously in violation of the law.

It would be interesting to understand the rules in other states. It may be that in some states that there is an exemption for government employees.

 

[Mark K]

What is exercising of engineering judgement and what is not is often subjective but care should be exercised when making the call.

Since the basic formulas in the wood code leave little room for ambiguity they possibly could be checked by a non-engineer. The selection or review of the design loads would undoutably require engineering judgement and thus would need the involvement of a licensed engineer.. Similarly the selection of the type of connection at the supports and other detailing considerations would be considered to require the application of engineering judgement.

 

[jar546]

Architects routinely submit drawings that do not meet the prescriptive code and since they are not structural engineers and never provide calculations (because they cannot) we use whatever tools are available to use to show them that they do not meet the code.

If we use the IRC or BeamChek or another software program then that is our prerogative. We are not designing.

A good use for a software program such as BeamCheck is for loads that are not in the IRC such as a ground snow load of 40 psf. The IRC shows 30 & 50 but not 40. If a DP submits plans that are for a 40 psf gsl and they meet the prescriptive requirements of the 30 psf column but not the 50 psf column, how else do we know whether or not what is proposed works? It is nice to be able to verify that something works rather than requiring them to upsize to the beam that works for the 50psf load.

My opinion of course.

 

[Mark K]

It is my understanding that in California Architects are able to perform engineering calculations. I believe ths is true in many states. Still architects like outher design professionals is required to only practice in those areas where he/she is competent.

An Architect is preparing engineering calculations when he uses a computer program to size a beam. The act of designing occrs irrespective of how the calculations are performed.

Using a software program to substitute for knowledge that you do not have is risky.

Part of the tradeoff of the proscriptive provisions of the IRC is that you sometimes have to accept a more conservative design in order to save the cost of engineering.

Just for the record typically many engineers are not looking for work on single family residential projects because often the fees are so low and there are more hassles from owners, contractors, and building officials.

 

[texasbo]

Using a software program to substitute for knowledge that you do not have is risky.

Mark, I don't disagree with most of what you say, but I can't agree with this. Most plans examiners are using tables to substitute for knowledge they don't have. They are not using them to design, they are using them to check. How is a software program any different? Most of my plans examiners couldn't draw a shear or bending diagram, nor could they calculate Mmax for even a simple uniformly loaded horizontal member. That's why there are tools such as tables and computer programs to help them.

 

[Mac]

I review architect and engineer's plan submittals all the time. Most have problems, errors, and are missing required information.

Even plans produced by a senior partner in a long time international award winning firm need correction. So what?

 

[vegas paul]

Funny story:

I recently asked an architect (in my correction letter) to provide the structural calcs from the engineer (all they submitted were the structural sheets). His reponse was " Why do you need the calcs, everythings stamped by the engineer? If the engineer stamps it, you can be assured it's compliant." Of course, this was in a response to a correction letter where I had 6 pages of corrections for the Architect (who had stamped all of his drawings too!).

So... why would I blindly accept stamped engineered drawings, but question stamped architectural drawings?

Short answer, I don't.

 

[Yankee]

An engineered beam design stamped by a liscensed engineer MAY POSSIBLY NOT "meet/match" the tables in the IRC (and/or the "beam programs") but that does NOT MEAN the design is NOT COMPLIANT. The tables are general solutions and the calculated beam is a specific solution.

 

[texasbo]

Yankee, I agree 100%. That does not mean the inspection department doesn't have the right to question it for good cause, and it doesn't mean they're practicing engineering if they do.

An engineered beam design stamped by a liscensed engineer MAY POSSIBLY NOT "meet/match" the tables in the IRC (and/or the "beam programs") but that does NOT MEAN the design is NOT COMPLIANT. The tables are general solutions and the calculated beam is a specific solution.

 

[Yankee]

Yankee, I agree 100%. That does not mean the inspection department doesn't have the right to question it for good cause, and it doesn't mean they're practicing engineering if they do.

I supposed some questions would be valid and some not, but one can't reject the design as being non-compliant without doing the engineering (practicing engineering). Perhaps the design criteria included ere is in error (for instance, if the design snow load for the location is incorrect), and questioning the choice of that number isn't practicing engineering.