• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

deleted

  • Thread starter Thread starter -
  • Start date Start date
Re: lots of corrections

tiger - The pics are a little too close to really grasp what is going on with the job, but seems like you have some real winners working in your jurisdiction. Does anyone there read up on products before they use them?
 
Re: lots of corrections

Tiger,

What's really scary is that; because most inspectors don't have the training and/or support of the AHJ; most of this suff gets built and covered up. It's a national disaster that is being ignored.

One way to "help" aleviate this problem, is for the Inspectors to have an organization that represents them, provides education and training, and backs them up when they "attempt" to enforce the codes; like the Police and Fire Services do.

Uncle Bob
 
Re: lots of corrections

Uncle Bob wrote;

Tiger,What's really scary is that; because most inspectors don't have the training and/or support of the AHJ; most of this suff gets built and covered up. It's a national disaster that is being ignored.

One way to "help" aleviate this problem, is for the Inspectors to have an organization that represents them, provides education and training, and backs them up when they "attempt" to enforce the codes; like the Police and Fire Services do.

Uncle Bob

Tiger,

What's really scary is that; because most inspectors don't have the training and/or support of the AHJ; most of this suff gets built and covered up. It's a national disaster that is being ignored.

One way to "help" aleviate this problem, is for the Inspectors to have an organization that represents them, provides education and training, and backs them up when they "attempt" to enforce the codes; like the Police and Fire Services do.

Uncle Bob
Click to expand...
I agree, and a lot of so called inspectors wouldn’t have a clue has to recommending options for a code complaint fix.
 
Re: lots of corrections

UB and Kilitact,

What would you gentlemen recommend? Please give a realistic suggestion or idea that we can get behind. :roll:

I believe there is sufficient support on this Message Board to get something going. :mrgreen:
 
Re: lots of corrections

UB and Kilitact,

What would you gentlemen recommend? Please give a realistic suggestion or idea that we can get behind. :roll:

I believe there is sufficient support on this Message Board to get something going. :mrgreen:
 
Re: lots of corrections

My recommendation: Any time you exceed or deviate from the prescriptive elements of the IRC, then an engineered design with calculations is required. The whole point of the IRC (and following the IRC!) is to provide a method for constructing one and two family dwellings WITHOUT requiring an engineered design. That's why everything is prescriptive, i.e. look-up tables, etc. in the IRC. When you don't support a beam prescriptively (as in the original photos) then you need an engineered design solution.

Now, it is doubtful that any self-respecting engineer would sign off on the design pictured above, however it is NOT the inspector's responsibility to suggest or recommend a fix, it is the designer's job. The inspector simply notes non-compliance, and awaits the revised solution. I can only ASSume that this method of beam support was not depicted on the approved plans... When the revised plans are submitted with either a prescriptive or engineered solution, then construction may continue.

My $.02.
 
Re: lots of corrections

I totally agree with the VP, if it does not meet the prescriptive requirements of the code, engineering is required, and the solution does not come from the inspector. JMHO
 
Re: lots of corrections

I agree that if the design is outside the parameters of the prescriptive code for SFR, engineering. If the design is prescriptive and the approve drawings didn’t call out a hanger size, then IMO, a inspector should be able, to look at the beam cals and see what the loading is and pull out the s ….. Catalog and give the framer some options that would allow the job to move forward, instead of stopping the job and requiring a redesign and or requiring that this be resubmitted.
 
Re: lots of corrections

"Now, it is doubtful that any self-respecting engineer would sign off on the design pictured above..."

V P - They're not the ones I worry about.

Kil - If you choose to take on design responsibility in your jurisdiction, that is your choice (and ultimately your liability). My personal opinion, and the opinion of every trainer I've ever had, is that a Code Official not only doesn't have to, but should not assume any design responsibiltiy. It's a slippery slope, and a fast slide into a bad place. That's not to say that I won't help guide a homeowner in making good choices. I just can't/don't/won't make the decision for them.

If it doesn't comply with the approved plans there are two options:

1) Make it comply, or

2) Get a redesign from the person who prepared the original plan.
 
Re: lots of corrections

jd I agree with you in part, giving them some options and making a decision for them are different.

1) Make it comply, or
Click to expand...
How would you make it comply
 
Re: lots of corrections

Kil - 'I' wouldn't make it comply... 'they' will have to.

It must comply with the approved plans or be redesigned.

IF a DP prepared the original plans it's going back to the DP.

IF a non-registered individual prepared them, default to prescriptive parameters OR have the non-registered individual propose a corrective measure.

Tell them how to fix it? Not me. Not my job.
 
Re: lots of corrections

That is a good example of why you should always require a set of clear, concise plans stamped by an engineer, architect and plans examiner.
 
Re: lots of corrections

Back in the day, our local bungalow colonies were all privately owned, usually by year round residents (locals). They rented to 'city folks' that wanted a summer place cheap, and the owners kept them nice.

Over time, they've been bought out by seasonal residents who don't have a clue about maintenance or construction. Can't tell you how many of these people have hired guys to 'repair' or 'do a little work on' their bungalows, only to have them jack the place up and set posts right on the dirt, and only charge about double what the cost would be to do it right.

Of course the schuysters never pull permits, and almost never do a job visible from the road...
 
Re: lots of corrections

tigerloose wrote;

Jpranch you win. It took a post and there was a footing. A close look at the picture and one can see that no hardware would work.
Click to expand...
you got to be kidding? thats your professional opinion. ;) :) :)
 
Re: lots of corrections

I would have had Simpson custom make a hanger to my engineers' specs, we used to do that all the time when I was framing.
 
Re: lots of corrections

beach wrote

I would have had Simpson custom make a hanger to my engineers' specs, we used to do that all the time when I was framing.
Click to expand...
or if not engineered, give other options that are found within the catalog, which by the way is available in spanish :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top