• 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

Yankee - if you question (or reject) the architectural issues are you practicing architecture without a license? Same for mechanical or electrical engineering... When I do the short circuit calcs and they don't work with the proposed design, am I practicing engineering?
 
Yankee said:
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.
Partially agree; however, if the design criteria is in error, then the design is noncompliant, and it should be turned down as such, and it is not practicing engineering to do so.
 
texasbo said:
Partially agree; however, if the design criteria is in error, then the design is noncompliant, and it should be turned down as such, and it is not practicing engineering to do so.
Exactly, I agree.

Vegas Paul. like what type of architectural issue? I'm afraid I don't know enough about calcs that would be included on an electrical engineer's submittal to include an answer on that part of your question.
 
Texasbo is right in that there is little difference between tables and computer programs. The difference is that the tables are sanctioned by the code. Because they are more general there is probably more potential for abuse. Also would suggest that architects are held to a higher standard of care than non-professionals.

Regarding the architect who said that you didn’t need the calculations and that if the engineer stamps the drawings you can be assured they are compliant, he is stupid. He has essentially guaranteed perfection. He has just increased his liability exposure. In addition this type of arrogance is often associated with a lack of competence. You should tell the architect that the permit application will be on hold until he responds with the calculations.

I believe that the plan checkers can legally reject an application for cause even if the plan checker practiced engineering without a license. This does not change the fact that the individual is practicing engineering without a license. The real difficulty is when the plan checkers lack of knowledge does not allow him to evaluate the engineer’s calculations and logic. In these situations you either need to have an engineer to assist in the plan review or accept the engineer’s word.

Another problem with relying exclusively on unlicensed personnel is that typically they are limited in their understanding and as a result may be incapable of finding certain types of violations.
 
Yankee said:
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.
When I see this, I ask for the calcs. This way I know the DP actually looked at it and it wasn't some error.
 
rktect 1 said:
When I see this, I ask for the calcs. This way I know the DP actually looked at it and it wasn't some error.
And so this is assuming that you are capable of doing the calcs also, and if you were to challenge the engineers results (more than simply asking for him/her to review their calcs) you would be practicing engineering and would need to be licensed.
 
Yankee said:
And so this is assuming that you are capable of doing the calcs also, and if you were to challenge the engineers results (more than simply asking for him/her to review their calcs) you would be practicing engineering and would need to be licensed.
I'm kinda not worried about it. I'm a licensed architect. And even if I were not, I would ask them to prove that their solution worked based on not meeting the min. prescriptive code. The way I would word my comment would not indicate that I was engineering anything. I would write, the beam as shown on sheet A-3 spanning 37 feet does not meet the prescriptive path as outlined in section whatever, table whatever. Provide calculations for this beam or provide a beam within the prescriptive path. Or something along those lines.

As was pointed out earlier, they may have used some wrong design criteria. This happens. In fact, it happened recently tome. I saw that on the cover page the loads were listed and when the calcs showed up, different loads were used. I called them on it and they corrected the information.

Usually though, calcs do not come into the office, especially for residential. They are just signed and sealed. So if I see some beam that just doesn't look right, I look at it some more. Maybe I even check it with software, and if I think it isn't right, I ask for the calcs for the beam.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do what rktect 1 does, and I am not an architect. I can read...pretty well. All I am doing when I look at structural calcs is proofreading them, looking to see if they used the right codes, the loads and other code-required values they used are correct, and that all required calculations are present. I don't check math, and I don't attempt to re-engineer. I look for POSSIBLE mistakes and point them out. Either they are fixed, or I receive an explantion of their reasoning.
 
If you challenge the architects "calculation" of allowable area, are you doing Architecture? Let's not put engineers on a different pedestal (BTW, I'm an engineer!) and put them above questioning. Of course I review the engineering calcs, and not just within my discipline (I'm an M.E., not a civil/structural or electrical). It's absurd to take any and all engineering designs without question, then pick apart the architectural issues (like occupant load, egress, etc.) Using that rediculous logic, lets just approve any drawing stamped by a registered design professional, without reviewing any of them!
 
texasbo said:
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.
I guess the issue has been beaten to death. Most if not all of the arguments I may have presented have been presented.

And no one has changed their position.
 
nothing requires us to accept an engineer's word as law... 16' garage door headers are an issue.. most of them will fail in time.. unless they are an engineered product to start with... (2-2x12 doesn't work.. even in a non bearing wall.. they sag).
 
No, but if you choose to reject an engineered item and the engineer supports his original design, you (if you are not also a licensed engineer) must refute the design by using another licensed engineer.
 
But Yankeee, if I win that fight once, you won't have to fight that fight again and you have made construction better in your city.

You have to pick your fights, only fight the ones you can win and the ones that have to be fought.
 
Asking the engineer to provide the calculations is not practicing engineering.

Reviewing the calculations is not practicing engineering.

Questioning or challenging the calculations is not practicing engineering.

Explaining what, specifically, you are concerned about in the calculations is not practicing engineering.

Telling the engineer HOW to FIX the calculations would, in all liklihood, be practicing engineering.

The engineered beam for the 16' garage door should come with the engineers' calculations and loads used in design; the manufacturer employs engineers for that very purpose. I bought two when I built my house and my PE called the manufacturer, provided the loading, and was sent the calculations to justify the beam sizes. As a practical matter, had I not otherwise needed an engineer for the project, I could have requested the same thing from the manufacturer and submitted their design calculations with my permit application. Those two non-prescriptive elements of my house were 'engineered' and the 'engineering calculations' were provided.

Plan review exists, in part, to keep everyone honest in the process.

Good engineers don't mind plan reviews, most I know welcome them.

Those who can't be bothered to document their design, in my experience, typically have submitted a poor design.

Those who scream the loudest about plan reviewers 'practicing engineering without a license', in my experience, have just been caught submitting substandard plans.

We're all supposed to be on the same side; the owners. The Code Official has a duty to perform; the DP has a duty to perform. Both duties are owed to the building/properrty owner. It's all about making sure these buildings are safe.
 
This thread has been an interesting read. I haven't been to the forum for a few weeks. I just want to chime in with my 2 cents worth.

I think those of you who are referring to RickAstoria as Non-Professional, maybe mean to use the word UN-Professional??

Anyway....

Its fun to read these debates.
 
peach said:
nothing requires us to accept an engineer's word as law...
I think the intent of the does does.

peach said:
16' garage door headers are an issue.. most of them will fail in time.. unless they are an engineered product to start with... (2-2x12 doesn't work.. even in a non bearing wall.. they sag).
And now you are not only practicing engineering, you are creating engineering requirements that do not appear in the code.
 
GHR

Can you point to a Table in the IRC that allows a 16 ft opening and what size header is to be used? Bearing or non-bearing wall.
 
George, Having an opinion and first hand experience is not practicing engineering or creating engineering requirements.
 
JBI said:
Asking the engineer to provide the calculations is not practicing engineering. Reviewing the calculations is not practicing engineering.

Questioning or challenging the calculations is not practicing engineering.

Explaining what, specifically, you are concerned about in the calculations is not practicing engineering.

Telling the engineer HOW to FIX the calculations would, in all liklihood, be practicing engineering.

The engineered beam for the 16' garage door should come with the engineers' calculations and loads used in design; the manufacturer employs engineers for that very purpose. I bought two when I built my house and my PE called the manufacturer, provided the loading, and was sent the calculations to justify the beam sizes. As a practical matter, had I not otherwise needed an engineer for the project, I could have requested the same thing from the manufacturer and submitted their design calculations with my permit application. Those two non-prescriptive elements of my house were 'engineered' and the 'engineering calculations' were provided.

Plan review exists, in part, to keep everyone honest in the process.

Good engineers don't mind plan reviews, most I know welcome them.

Those who can't be bothered to document their design, in my experience, typically have submitted a poor design.

Those who scream the loudest about plan reviewers 'practicing engineering without a license', in my experience, have just been caught submitting substandard plans.

We're all supposed to be on the same side; the owners. The Code Official has a duty to perform; the DP has a duty to perform. Both duties are owed to the building/properrty owner. It's all about making sure these buildings are safe.
Say AMEN!! Outstanding post! :!:
 
mtlogcabin said:
GHRCan you point to a Table in the IRC that allows a 16 ft opening and what size header is to be used? Bearing or non-bearing wall.
There is no structural requirement for a header in a non-bearing wall. So there is no need for a table and no need for engineering. (Suggesting that a header is required is practicing engineering.)

JBI said:
George, Having an opinion and first hand experience is not practicing engineering or creating engineering requirements.
Peach is an inspector. If she refuses a permit based on her opinion, her opinion becomes practicing engineering.
 
GHRoberts said:
There is no structural requirement for a header in a non-bearing wall. So there is no need for a table and no need for engineering. (Suggesting that a header is required is practicing engineering.)Peach is an inspector. If she refuses a permit based on her opinion, her opinion becomes practicing engineering.
Suggesting that the opening comply with the code is not practicing engineering. Requiring that the designer show me how the 16' span complies with the IRC is not engineering.

If Peach's opinion is that your design doesn't comply with the code, is not practicing engineering. Even if she couldn't show you why it didn't comply, it's not engineering, it's just bad inspecting.

Peach IS an engineer, and she and other RDP's have told you that plan review and inspection aren't engineering, whether the plan review and inspection is regarding engineered plans or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a structural requirement for a header, even in a non-bearing wall. It has to support the weight of the wall above it, and a header in a gable endwall of a garage will also have to support a foot or two of roof load. The total load wouldn't be much more than a floor joist carries per lineal foot, so a double 2x12 would probably be adequate in this case, although as Peach pointed out long-term deflection might be a problem.
 
Paul Sweet said:
There is a structural requirement for a header, even in a non-bearing wall. It has to support the weight of the wall above it, and a header in a gable endwall of a garage will also have to support a foot or two of roof load. The total load wouldn't be much more than a floor joist carries per lineal foot, so a double 2x12 would probably be adequate in this case, although as Peach pointed out long-term deflection might be a problem.
Long term deflection is a structural failure.
 
Top