Yes , i know it has become very hard to construct a house now a days as the construction workers have their own demands and similarly the contractor has also some financial problems so on and so forth.But it is worth giving a try man to build your home..................
-
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
Builders Driving Me Insane 2009 Windbracing
- Thread starter Mule
- Start date
Okay, the engineer has finally submitted the plans for the windbracing. Now a question for my professional designer friends and fellow BO/inspectors.
Now remember... this is 2009 windbracing.....house started without submittal under the 2009 codes for windbracing.
IF an engineer has designed a structure and the design does not meet the minimum code requirements is that okay? For instance, the 2009 IRC specifys that when a wall is greater in length than 60 feet then you have to provide interior shear walls to "break" up the length of the wall. These walls must have a beam under them and must have anchor bolts the same as exterior walls.
The engineered design shows interior GB walls..no beam under them and add 3/8" X 3" Hilti anchors to secure them to the floor as a shear wall. Code requires at lease 7" into concrete These would only be 1 1/2" into concrete.
Also the portal framing is not per the 2009 IRC. Calling for 8D nails around the king studs, 2 1000 lb straps and only two 3 1/2" Hilti anchors to secure the portal walls to the foundation.
This design does not even come close to the requirements of the 2009 IRC BUT it is an engineered design.
Would you guys accept it? I'm having a hard time accepting it even though it is sealed by an engineer. Just because an engineer seals a design does that make it correct? I know it puts the liability on the engineer but are we locked in to accept the design when it is not to the minimum codes?
Having a hard time here!!!!!
Now remember... this is 2009 windbracing.....house started without submittal under the 2009 codes for windbracing.
IF an engineer has designed a structure and the design does not meet the minimum code requirements is that okay? For instance, the 2009 IRC specifys that when a wall is greater in length than 60 feet then you have to provide interior shear walls to "break" up the length of the wall. These walls must have a beam under them and must have anchor bolts the same as exterior walls.
The engineered design shows interior GB walls..no beam under them and add 3/8" X 3" Hilti anchors to secure them to the floor as a shear wall. Code requires at lease 7" into concrete These would only be 1 1/2" into concrete.
Also the portal framing is not per the 2009 IRC. Calling for 8D nails around the king studs, 2 1000 lb straps and only two 3 1/2" Hilti anchors to secure the portal walls to the foundation.
This design does not even come close to the requirements of the 2009 IRC BUT it is an engineered design.
Would you guys accept it? I'm having a hard time accepting it even though it is sealed by an engineer. Just because an engineer seals a design does that make it correct? I know it puts the liability on the engineer but are we locked in to accept the design when it is not to the minimum codes?
Having a hard time here!!!!!
Architect1281
Gold Member
No Mule I would not accept the suspect design.
Engineers and even Architects have Stamps,
so does the post office
dosen't make them right.
small though it may be in structure in RI at least the building official can and we do request an independent or peer review calculation.
sometimes I'm embarrased,
but most often its the engineer.
and better yet the owner gets to pay for it.
§ 23-27.3-128.6 Special technical services.
(a) When applications for unusual designs or magnitude of construction are filed, the building official may refer the plans and specifications to the state building commissioner, or he or she may in his or her discretion, retain a professional engineer or architect for advice and recommendations as to the plans and specifications, safety of design, and compliance with this code
§ 23-27.3-128.7 Fees and costs.
All fees and costs related to the performance of special professional services, testing, inspections, and reporting shall be borne by the owner.
sometimes by just asking the engineer reconsiders and actually analizes the entire load path
PS and Unusual Design IMHO is outside prescriptive path
Engineers and even Architects have Stamps,
so does the post office
dosen't make them right.
small though it may be in structure in RI at least the building official can and we do request an independent or peer review calculation.
sometimes I'm embarrased,
but most often its the engineer.
and better yet the owner gets to pay for it.
§ 23-27.3-128.6 Special technical services.
(a) When applications for unusual designs or magnitude of construction are filed, the building official may refer the plans and specifications to the state building commissioner, or he or she may in his or her discretion, retain a professional engineer or architect for advice and recommendations as to the plans and specifications, safety of design, and compliance with this code
§ 23-27.3-128.7 Fees and costs.
All fees and costs related to the performance of special professional services, testing, inspections, and reporting shall be borne by the owner.
sometimes by just asking the engineer reconsiders and actually analizes the entire load path
PS and Unusual Design IMHO is outside prescriptive path
JBI
Registered User
Unless you've changed Chapter 1 of the 2009 Res Code...
R105.4 Validity of permit. The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the building official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data. The building official is also authorized to prevent occupancy or use of a structure where in violation of this code or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction.
Backdating the application would be a felony.
That being said...
R301.1.3 Engineered design. When a building of otherwise conventional construction contains structural elements exceeding the limits of Section R301 or otherwise not conforming to this code, these elements shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions and shall be compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system. Engineered design in accordance with the International Building Code is permitted for all buildings and structures, and parts thereof, included in the scope of this code.
Ask for the calculations that support the design
R105.4 Validity of permit. The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the building official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data. The building official is also authorized to prevent occupancy or use of a structure where in violation of this code or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction.
Backdating the application would be a felony.
That being said...
R301.1.3 Engineered design. When a building of otherwise conventional construction contains structural elements exceeding the limits of Section R301 or otherwise not conforming to this code, these elements shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions and shall be compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system. Engineered design in accordance with the International Building Code is permitted for all buildings and structures, and parts thereof, included in the scope of this code.
Ask for the calculations that support the design
Last edited by a moderator:
dhengr
Bronze Member
Mule:
Engineers and Architects with stamps are not always infallible, and some of them are downright lazy and careless with what they do and spec. It seems to me that you have some obligation to call out the things that you think don’t meet the code. I think you also have some obligation to point out the details in question, cite the code sections you think have been violated, and ask for further explanation from the Engineer, and at this stage calcs. and detailed confirmation of meeting your cited code sections. Remember, in many cases there are several ways to skin the same cat. I don’t usually expect that I have to supply calcs. for everything I design, particularly when my plans, details, written or verbal explanations are reasonably well thought out. But, when there is a question, I would sooner work with you as long as we are both being reasonable, than go out of my way to antagonize you. Maybe you can help the Engineer a bit, by backing him on the need for the extra effort and cost, because without a doubt, the builder came to him and asked that this be done in an hour, without implicating the builder’s original errors. You’re trying to help fix the builder’s bulls and the costs would have been his if he had done it right in the first place, although maybe a bit lower.
Do let us know what the SIMPSON Engineers have to say when you show them the areas that you are questioning. Just as we harp about builders and drafters/designers overstepping their experience and engineering abilities, we should expect a reasonable level of quality and attention to detail and the codes in the work done by Engineers and Architects or they should be called out on the lack thereof. By this stage the file indicates that this has gone back and forth a time or two and your name is on every other interaction, so if it’s wrong you can’t ignore it now, without putting your own reputation and authority in question.
Engineers and Architects with stamps are not always infallible, and some of them are downright lazy and careless with what they do and spec. It seems to me that you have some obligation to call out the things that you think don’t meet the code. I think you also have some obligation to point out the details in question, cite the code sections you think have been violated, and ask for further explanation from the Engineer, and at this stage calcs. and detailed confirmation of meeting your cited code sections. Remember, in many cases there are several ways to skin the same cat. I don’t usually expect that I have to supply calcs. for everything I design, particularly when my plans, details, written or verbal explanations are reasonably well thought out. But, when there is a question, I would sooner work with you as long as we are both being reasonable, than go out of my way to antagonize you. Maybe you can help the Engineer a bit, by backing him on the need for the extra effort and cost, because without a doubt, the builder came to him and asked that this be done in an hour, without implicating the builder’s original errors. You’re trying to help fix the builder’s bulls and the costs would have been his if he had done it right in the first place, although maybe a bit lower.
Do let us know what the SIMPSON Engineers have to say when you show them the areas that you are questioning. Just as we harp about builders and drafters/designers overstepping their experience and engineering abilities, we should expect a reasonable level of quality and attention to detail and the codes in the work done by Engineers and Architects or they should be called out on the lack thereof. By this stage the file indicates that this has gone back and forth a time or two and your name is on every other interaction, so if it’s wrong you can’t ignore it now, without putting your own reputation and authority in question.
Robert Ellenberg
Registered User
Mule,
I am lazy so I am going to go off of memory and not pull out the code book. But I believe the walls have to be tied down to meet a specified load--I don't think it calls for the same anchoring that the exterior walls call for. Enough Hiltis close together can probable meet the load. But whether they do or not, did the engineers submission show it? To meet the code I don't believe it is sufficient to simply stamp the drawings. The code says you have to show that it meets the equivalent of the prescriptive code (paraphrasing from memory). When I have a similar situation, I ask my engineer to do the calculations for the prescriptive requirements and then for how we are proposing to do it and make those calculations part of the permit submission. I think that is what I have to do to be compliant.
I am lazy so I am going to go off of memory and not pull out the code book. But I believe the walls have to be tied down to meet a specified load--I don't think it calls for the same anchoring that the exterior walls call for. Enough Hiltis close together can probable meet the load. But whether they do or not, did the engineers submission show it? To meet the code I don't believe it is sufficient to simply stamp the drawings. The code says you have to show that it meets the equivalent of the prescriptive code (paraphrasing from memory). When I have a similar situation, I ask my engineer to do the calculations for the prescriptive requirements and then for how we are proposing to do it and make those calculations part of the permit submission. I think that is what I have to do to be compliant.
Thanks for all of the comments. The Simpson engineer is coming at 10 this AM. Hopefully we will all learn something here.
One interior wall braced section is around 34 feet long and the engineer specifies 6 anchors imbedded 1.7" into the concrete. Well with a 3" anchor and 1 1/2" plate and at least 1/2" allowed for the washer and nut.....that figures up to be 2". I know I'm not very good at math but I think that would only leave 1" to be imbedded into the concrete. Am I missing something? Maybe it's the new math that I'm not used too!
From the commentary...I know....
This section is in the foundation section of the 2009 IRC
2. Interior braced wall plates shall have anchor bolts spaced
at not more than 6 feet (1829 mm) on center and located
within 12 inches (305 mm) of the ends of each plate section
when supported on a continuous foundation.
And then from Section 600's.....
Braced wall lines are not always exterior walls, as
braced wall line B in Commentary Figure
R602.10.1(1) illustrates. An interior braced wall line
may be required—depending on the size of the
house, the wind speed, or SDC— to supplement the
exterior braced wall lines. Interior braced wall lines
have requirements similar to exterior wall lines in
terms of bracing length, panel location, wall line offsets
and attachments.
I am very anxious for the Simpson engineer to consult with me.
One interior wall braced section is around 34 feet long and the engineer specifies 6 anchors imbedded 1.7" into the concrete. Well with a 3" anchor and 1 1/2" plate and at least 1/2" allowed for the washer and nut.....that figures up to be 2". I know I'm not very good at math but I think that would only leave 1" to be imbedded into the concrete. Am I missing something? Maybe it's the new math that I'm not used too!
From the commentary...I know....
This section is in the foundation section of the 2009 IRC
2. Interior braced wall plates shall have anchor bolts spaced
at not more than 6 feet (1829 mm) on center and located
within 12 inches (305 mm) of the ends of each plate section
when supported on a continuous foundation.
And then from Section 600's.....
Braced wall lines are not always exterior walls, as
braced wall line B in Commentary Figure
R602.10.1(1) illustrates. An interior braced wall line
may be required—depending on the size of the
house, the wind speed, or SDC— to supplement the
exterior braced wall lines. Interior braced wall lines
have requirements similar to exterior wall lines in
terms of bracing length, panel location, wall line offsets
and attachments.
I am very anxious for the Simpson engineer to consult with me.
What do you mean when you say "the minimum code requirements?"Mule said:
An engineered design most likely will have fewer and smaller bracing elements than the prescriptive code calls for. That does not mean it does not meet the code.
---
Having the Hilti engineers give an opinion does not mean that the design you are confronted with is not sufficient.
TimNY
Platinum Member
Engineers do math.. Did they give you any math? If they just gave you prints, ask them for the math. Usually it has some triangles and arrows.. think I saw a teeter-totter thing a few times.
I mean.. they did do the math to calculate what loads they have, then select the straps and fasteners to meet the requirements, right?
If you ask for peer review, the other RDP should be reviewing the math, not doing all the calculations and seeing if what is on the prints meets the design they created. JMHO. Otherwise the homeowner is paying for 2 RDP's to design their home.
I mean.. they did do the math to calculate what loads they have, then select the straps and fasteners to meet the requirements, right?
If you ask for peer review, the other RDP should be reviewing the math, not doing all the calculations and seeing if what is on the prints meets the design they created. JMHO. Otherwise the homeowner is paying for 2 RDP's to design their home.
Okay, just finished with the engineers...Houston,,We have a MAJOR problem.
Tim, No.. no calculations just totals of what the end result was soooooo we did a quick run through and found several problems. Now in the submitting engineers defense this is the first structure he has submitted or even designed under the 2009 IRC.
Braced wall lines were not laid out properly. The reason I state that is that there is a bracced wall line running through the middle of the structure with no walls within 48". Also no bracing shown every 25 feet. To tell you the truth there were too many concerns to list them all here.
Remember the 3" anchor...the Simpson engineer said that those size of anchors are only 1/2 the holding power of what the standard achor bolt is so they would probably need to double up on the spacing...the engineer speicified every 6 feet.
My gut feeling was correct!
Tim, No.. no calculations just totals of what the end result was soooooo we did a quick run through and found several problems. Now in the submitting engineers defense this is the first structure he has submitted or even designed under the 2009 IRC.
Braced wall lines were not laid out properly. The reason I state that is that there is a bracced wall line running through the middle of the structure with no walls within 48". Also no bracing shown every 25 feet. To tell you the truth there were too many concerns to list them all here.
Remember the 3" anchor...the Simpson engineer said that those size of anchors are only 1/2 the holding power of what the standard achor bolt is so they would probably need to double up on the spacing...the engineer speicified every 6 feet.
My gut feeling was correct!
Let me tell you fellers and gals something. If you haven't gotten into this 2009 windbracing thing...it's a whole new ballgame! You better know how to determine if the plans are correct or not cause you just can't believe it's okay just because an engineer designs it! LOTS of problems just as I suspected.