Authority of Plan Checkers

[conarb]

Under the IBC what authority does the plan checker have to make structural requirements, and under which section of the IBC?

It's always been my understanding that the plan checker was only empowered to check structural calculations for mistakes and compliance with generally accepted engineering standards, assuming both the EOR and plan checker are both SEs, can the plan checker force the engineer to go over and above what the engineer deems structural adequacy?

 

[alora]

Under the IBC what authority does the plan checker have to make structural requirements, and under which section of the IBC?

104.11?

It's always been my understanding that the plan checker was only empowered to check structural calculations for mistakes and compliance with generally accepted engineering standards, assuming both the EOR and plan checker are both SEs, can the plan checker force the engineer to go over and above what the engineer deems structural adequacy?

Do you mean, 'can the plan checker tell the engineer how to design'?

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Under the IBC what authority does the plan checker have to make structural requirements, and under which section of the IBC?It's always been my understanding that the plan checker was only empowered to check structural calculations for mistakes and compliance with generally accepted engineering standards, assuming both the EOR and plan checker are both SEs, can the plan checker force the engineer to go over and above what the engineer deems structural adequacy?

An interesting question. I would think based upon 104.11 and 106.3, and additional Section 1603 &1604, the PR-SE should be able to ascertain compliance or non-compliance.

In my experience, when the Plan Reviewer is also an SE, they have the authority to call into question the EOR's design and request additional information from the EOR in support of their design. If it is a difference in structural design philosophy, I suppose the PR-SE could submit the EOR's work and calculations to the governing license board if deemed inadequate, or request a second opinion.

 

[conarb]

Do you mean, 'can the plan checker tell the engineer how to design'?

Yes, I have a case where the engineer designed in a computerized program, the plan checker was familiar with that program and had used it in the past, the engineer brought the program in a laptop into her office, running the program she demanded that he increase connections by approximately 33% over what he considered adequate factoring in generally accepted safety margins.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Under the IBC what authority does the plan checker have to make structural requirements, and under which section of the IBC?

He doesn't, he can request additional information calcs and other supporting documentation he may need to assure compliance. Section 107

can the plan checker force the engineer to go over and above what the engineer deems structural adequacy?

Not if the engineer can back it up with something other than "I am an engineer and I put my stamp on it".

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Yes, I have a case where the engineer designed in a computerized program, the plan checker was familiar with that program and had used it in the past, the engineer brought the program in a laptop into her office, running the program she demanded that he increase connections by approximately 33% over what he considered adequate factoring in generally accepted safety margins.

I think myself that we have more machinery of efficacy than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the computer program...without understanding how those results are actually produced.

 

[conarb]

I was present but didn't want to comment not being an engineer, also since the discussion was based upon a computerized program loads were apparently already factored in. Not once were the Structural Calculations even referenced, they were bound about 1½" thick. The program was animated and I could follow seismic and wind loads being applied, the plan checker just demanded "stiffer" connections to resist loads as opposed to flexible connections transferring loads. She even brought out plans from a major building recommending that he redesign his column to beam connections as they had done.

 

[mtlogcabin]

the plan checker just demanded "stiffer" connections to resist loads as opposed to flexible connections transferring loads.

Different schools of thought. The plans checker is exceeding the authority granted by the IBC if she is requiring loads be used which are above the minimums found in the code and referenced standards.

 

[conarb]

JFYI, this is a demonstration of the program in action, it takes a while to load to play but is well worth the time to see where structural design is going.

http://www.risa.com/onlinevideos/3d/seismicdesign/SeismicDesign.htm​

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Different schools of thought. The plans checker is exceeding the authority granted by the IBC if she is requiring loads be used which are above the minimums found in the code and referenced standards.

That is how it sounds to me too...I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting...thanks for the link.

 

[Mac]

Engineer fight! Woo hoo!

 

[brudgers]

Having reviewed huge stacks of sealed truss shop drawings during my time behind the counter following the adoption of FBC - I can say without hesitation that:

1. Using a computer program, don't meandickinmybook.

2. What an engineer deems as structurally adequate can be reportable to the state engineering board.

 

[conarb]

I have to assume from the responses that there is no definitive code section regulating arbitrary requirements of plan checkers?

Another point I might make, here in our Seismic zone more rigid structures can be dangerous, more rigid is not necessarily stronger, in a letter to the editor on the Journal of Light Construction Thor Matteson SE makes this statement (Thor wrote the Shear Wall Construction Guide¹ used by many contractors and architects):

Don’t Glue Sheathing in Seismic ZonesA letter in the June 2011 issue (“Gluing Sheathing Improves Air Sealing”) suggests attaching wall sheathing with adhesive. This could be a code violation in earthquake country. The “Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic” (SDPWS) governs wood-framed construction; SDPWS Section 4.3.6.3.1 states that “adhesive attachment of shear wall sheathing shall not be used alone, or in combination with mechanical fasteners.” An exception to this provision allows using adhesives in Seismic Design Categories A, B, and C, but only with a severe penalty (the entire structural system must be designed to withstand about four times the earthquake force required for shear panels attached with nails alone). Almost all construction in California falls into Seismic Design Categories D, E, or F, so using adhesive on shear panels here is completely out of the question.

Attaching shear panels with adhesive creates a stiffer wall; stiff structural systems “attract” more earthquake loads than flexible systems. Adhesive attachment robs a shear wall of its ductility, which is beneficial in absorbing earthquake energy. This increases the chance of sudden, “brittle” structural failures, which are the most devastating in earthquakes.

Thor Matteson, S.E.

Berkeley, Calif.²

I would say that a more brittle wood framed wood structure is analogous to a more brittle steel framed structure.

¹ http://www.shearwalls.com/products/products.php

² http://www.jlconline.com/cgi-local/viewnew.pdf/94755d636ec9eac495a3840b37ea8bdc/de53dc808d850553d34c296986469696/www.jlconline.com/cgi-bin/jlconline.storefront/4e7925f3024ea74427190a323cb4064b

 

[mark handler]

conarb

Is this a CA project?

I hope You are aware that all the Administrative sections in the CBC are different than those in the IBC.....

 

[brudgers]

I have to assume from the responses that there is no definitive code section regulating arbitrary requirements of plan checkers?

Nor is there a section regulating the shenanigans of contractors.

 

[mark handler]

In addition to Chapter 1 you needto look at CBC 1603.1.5 Earthquake design data. The following information related to seismic loads shall be shown, regardless of whether seismic loads govern the design of the lateralforce- resisting system of the building:

1. Seismic importance factor, I, and occupancy category.

2. Mapped spectral response accelerations, Ss and S}.

3. Site class.

4. Spectral response coefficients, SDS and SDl'

5. Seis6. Basic seismic-force-resisting system(s).

7. Design base shear.

8. Seismic response coefficient(s), Cs.

9. Response modification factor(s), R.

10. Analysis procedure used.mic design category.

CBC 1603.1 General. Construction documents shall show the size, section and relative locations of structural members with floor levels, column centers and offsets dimensioned. The design loads and other information pertinent to the structural design required by Sections 1603.1.1 through 1603.1.9 shall be indicated on the construction documents.

 

[TJacobs]

Boy am I glad I don't have earthquake or hurricane loads to deal with...

 

[steveray]

^ X2 with TJ....although this year we had......4+' of snow on roofs, tornado, earthquake, and hurricane...just about every piece of bad weather you can have.....at least we got it all out of the way now....

 

[TJacobs]

100-year/500-year flood...riiiiiiight.

 

[gbhammer]

I would take a tremor here and there overr the political climate in IL. and poor CA they have both in heaps.

 

[TJacobs]

I would take a tremor here and there overr the political climate in IL. and poor CA they have both in heaps.

:agree Amen brother to the political climate sucking!

 

[Mark K]

Any authority resides with the building official not the plan checker.

The plan checker cannot require that the structural engineer do anything that is not mandated by the building code. If the structural engineer can show that he has complied with the adopted code provisions then the building official must accept it. Agree with mtlogcabin.

The plan checker should be able to reference a specific code requirement when requiring something. If he/she cannot provide a code reference it would be reasonable to expect that the plan checker was illegally asking for something she had no authority to require.

The question for the building official is not whether the engineer believes it is adequate but rather whether it complies with the code. This does not mean that the structural engineer shouldn’t go beyond the code but rather that the building official cannot require it.

The reference to section 104.11 has to do with the building official allowing variations from the code. It can be used to allow the structural engineer to do something not strictly allowed by the code. Section 104.11 cannot be used to require that the structural engineer do something in addition to the code requirements.

The plan checker can require documentation to show that the design complies with the code. An animated computer program may look impressive but the structural engineer needs to be able to show more information to substantiate the design.

 

[conarb]

The plan checker should be able to reference a specific code requirement when requiring something. If he/she cannot provide a code reference it would be reasonable to expect that the plan checker was illegally asking for something she had no authority to require.

Thanks Mark but this is steel frame construction, I don't think there are specific code sections for steel frames, are there?

 

[imhotep]

Thanks Mark but this is steel frame construction, I don't think there are specific code sections for steel frames, are there?

Not Mark, but yes there are specific code provisions found under Chapter 16.

1614.3.2 Structural steel, open web steel joist or joist girder, or composite steel and concrete frame structures. Frame structures constructed with a structural steel frame or a frame composed of open web steel joists, joist girders with or without other structural steel elements or a frame composed of composite steel or composite steel joists and reinforced concrete elements shall conform to the requirements of this section.